hi 

. Fs 
c °f/ 






M 







*\ 



*5 ^ - 

; «.**■%. Www: j>% \ 



X # 



-\ ^ // 



*> 




%, 






\ ^ 

A 




% * H 5 «0 3 



o. 









<*. 



*> .0 



x ^. 














, V I B -, V», 



\0 ^u 



x° ^ 



*• G> V 



V V 



c- 






x 0o «. 



tf 






#\v 



^ 



o5 ^ 



x°^. 



C\_ 



c*V 



\ <** 



: * Y \\ 






'o. 



X ^, 



-> 



< 



.A 



<\ 



.** 



^ 



c- 






&% 
* .<** ^ 






V 












* ,y - 



ENGLISH OPINION OF THE AMERICAN 
CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT 

(1783-1798) - 



BY 



LEON FRASER 



NEW YORK 
1915 



ENGLISH OPINION OF THE AMERICAN 

CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT 

(1783—1798) 



BY 

LEON FRASERv 



NEW YORK 
1915 






Copyright, 1915 

BY 
LEON FRASER J 



0.^398746^ 



MAY 1 1915 V 



SUSAN DAYTON BONAR 



CONTENTS 



PART I 

BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION 

Introductory 9 

CHAPTER I— At the Beginning 15 

CHAPTER II— From the Definitive Treaty of Peace to the Annapolis 

Convention 31 

CHAPTER III- At the Dawn of Federal Existence 45 

CHAPTER I V-The Reception of the Constitution 55 

PART II 

AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION 

Introductory 63 

CHAPTER I— The Views of the Radicals 67 

CHAPTER II-The Opinion of the Conservatives 85 

CHAPTER III— The Administration, Fox, and Burke 99 

CHAPTER IV— Criticism of Constitutional Organization 107 



PART I 



BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION 



INTRODUCTORY. 

Gladstone's panegyric of our charter of government is 
classic and fanciful: "As the British Constitution is the 
most subtle organism which has proceeded from the womb 
and long gestation of progressive history ; so the American 
Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful 
work ever struck off at a given moment by the brain and 
purpose of man." 1 If this was the opinion of the Prime 
Minister of Queen Victoria, what was the opinion of the 
Prime Minister of George III? How did Burke, political 
philosopher, and philosophical politician, regard the gov- 
ernment which resulted from the Revolution he had so 
insistently endorsed? When the Colonies wrested inde- 
pendence from the Crown, what was the horoscope for the 
new nation cast by English statesman, thinker, pamph- 
leteer, penny-a-liner? What did they think of the experi- 
ment under the Articles of Confederation? While the Con- 
stitutional Convention was sitting in Philadelphia, what 
were the newspapers saying in London? When the fruit 
of the Convention's deliberations was published and put 
into practice, what was the general judgment on the 
federal, presidential, republican scheme, then somewhat 
of a new thing under the sun? 

It is the purpose of these pages to answer these ques- 
tions. They present an anthology of opinion. They aim 
to indicate the British view of American conditions from 
the signing of the provisional Treaty of Peace, 2 when the 
majority of Englishmen were certain that the upstart 

i"Kin Beyond the Sea," North American Review, September, 1878 ; re- 
printed in Gleanings of Past Tears, 1879, I., 212. 
230 November, 1782. 



10 INTRODUCTORY 

Confederation was destined to be short-lived, nntil about 
the middle of the administration of John Adams when the 
majority conceded that the United States was entitled to 
an increasingly important place in the family of nations. 
We shall observe the divergent views of radicals and con- 
servatives, Jacobins and monarchists. We shall see how 
concerned were the friends of America during the long 
war over the events in the disordered interregnum from 
the recognition of independence to the adoption of the 
Constitution ; and how the remaining English gloated. We 
shall examine the proposals for a better government which 
unoccupied Britons framed for American consumption. 
We shall notice the reception of the actually adopted 
Constitution among those who had lately been our foes, 
with particular reference to the criticism of its theory and 
operation that came from the innumerable pens of the 
political critics and criticasters who crowd this period, 
and from the lips of orators in Parliament and in public 
who brought forward America, the horrible example, or 
the triumphant success. 

Naturally there is some difficulty in asserting that the 
written evidence which remains — contemporary books, 
histories, pamphlets, newspapers, magazines, narratives of 
travellers, parliamentary debates, diplomatic dispatches, 
letters, biographies and memoirs of the time — represents 
exactly and fully the entire English attitude toward the 
stripling state. Some expressed opinion may be merely 
individual. Some widespread opinions may not have 
been expressed in permanent form. But, since people 
have their thinking done for them, it may be posited that 
a statement found in half a dozen varied sources represents 
in a general way the prevailing thought of the day. When 
we find in the Times, and in a political pamphlet, in a stray 
personal letter, in an autobiography, and in a traveller's 
tale the reiterated assertion that with the retirement of 
Washington from the Presidency, the United States will 
disintegrate at the first election, it may fairly be said that 



INTRODUCTORY \\ 

many Englishmen took this view. People readily believe 
what they desire. 

In the bundle of excerpts which follow we shall dis- 
tinguish what appears to be popular opinion from the 
merely individual or eccentric. We must remember, too, 
that there is no such phenomenon as a national opinion 
which is a unit. Thought within nations is cut by strata. 
There are the pros and cons, liberals and conservatives, 
Foxites and Pittites. In this study we shall note how 
persons looking at the same facts interpreted them to 
square with preconceived notions of governmental right 
and wrong. In general the radicals and anti-administra- 
tion men were pro- American through thick and thin. In 
general the Conservatives belittled the success of the new 
institutions, and the administration statesmen looked 
grudgingly at the contrast between republican principles 
across the Atlantic and across the Channel. Advocates of 
parliamentary reform or economic betterment shouted 
America up. Defenders of King, Church, and State cried 
her down. 

But a drift of fundamental opinion is ascertainable. It 
is easy to look behind the benevolent expressions of our 
sympathizers in 1782-88 and find that their enthusiasm is 
a litt]e puffed in face of the facts of the situation. Their 
hearts were not so strong as their voices. It is easy to 
detect in the acrid remarks of our opponents in 1790-96 
some additional acerbity because the experiment is lasting 
so long. While the well-wishers become more sincerely 
confident, the adversaries grumble. Indeed, as in America 
itself, English opinion seems slowly to have evolved from 
an initial certainty that the union was bound to fail, to 
an ultimate confidence that heavy odds were in favor of 
its endurance. 

Changing opinion caused an altered attitude in political 
relations between the two countries. It is not complete 
to assert, as Professor McLaughlin asserts, that "England 
refrained from entering into a commercial treaty because 



12 INTRODUCTORY 

she believed the enforcement of navigation laws would 
put money in her merchant's pockets." 1 There were other 
and more important factors coupled directly with the con- 
ceptions about existing American government held by her 
statesmen. We shall find a marked and causal transition 
in the English notion of American institutions from 1784, 
when our representatives were dilly-dallying for months 
in the vain hope of consummating a commercial treaty, 
and the ideas of ten years later when Jay was able to arrive 
at an agreement. There is a distinct reason for the un- 
simi]ar receptions accorded Rufus King, who was wel- 
comed Minister to the Court of St. James's in 1796, and 
John Adams who presented his credentials in 1785. Of 
Adams's arrival an English newspaper spoke thus: 

"An ambassador from America — Good Heavens, what 
a sound! The Gazette surely never announced anything 
so extraordinary before, nor on a day so little expected. 
. . . 'Tis hard to say which can excite indignation most, 
the insolence of those who appoint the character, or the 
manners of those who receive it." 2 

Further, within the boundaries of the countries them- 
selves, there was a reciprocal influence of opinion and of 
institutions. England's contempt for our situation under 
the Articles of Confederation, her refusal to send an Am- 
bassador and to conclude a supplemental treaty was one 
element in the manifold influences which wrought the 
political reformation of 1787. The principles of repub- 
licanism, religious freedom, separation of church and state, 
and popular representation, practised across the water 
without any volcanic disruption of society, were shibbo- 
leths for Scottish Burgh reformer, Irish patriot, British 
radical, and thorns in the flesh of all good expounders of 
constitutional monarchy. 

Before assembling the English comments on the experi- 
ment in the great political laboratory we must sound a 

1A. C. McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution (1905), 
105. 2Pub. Advertiser, 6 June, 1785. 



INTRODUCTORY 13 

word of warning. We must not expect too much. If we 
will ask ourselves first what naturally would be the criti- 
cism of a nation's people, somewhat embittered over the loss 
of a colony, when they speak of that colony's initial at- 
tempts at self-government and observe with comprehen- 
sible delight its feeble beginnings at walking alone, we 
shal] find that the thoughts that come to our mind about 
the probable inferences and desires are curiously like those 
which were actually voiced. So our study will reveal noth- 
ing extraordinary, though it may make us dubious about 
the wisdom of political prophesy when we compare things 
as they are with things as early British critics said they 
were bound to be. 

We must remember, also, that the adoption of the Con- 
stitution looms as an occurrence of the first magnitude 
to us largely by virtue of its long endurance. In the winter 
of 1787-88 there was no tradition of veneration, as vitriolic 
pamphleteers who battled in the different states against 
the ratification of the document make evident. To the 
contemporaries it was simply a new plan, substituted for 
a failure, that was published in the British press in No- 
vember, 1787. They had been rather more interested in 
the failure than in the suggested modes of reform. Indeed, 
were it not for the fact that America had lately been a 
colony, it is doubtful whether the public would have turned 
aside from the absorbing trial of Warren Hastings, then 
coming on, to criticise the new venture. It would have 
mattered about as much to England as a reformed charter 
in Thibet. Yet we shall find a respectable amount of atten- 
tion from all, ranks of society directed toward the American 
political adventure from the Treaty of Peace to the adop- 
tion of the federal constitution, at its ratification, and at 
its trial during the administrations of Washington and 
Adams when it came to be discovered that the scheme of 
the federal convention was not a paper charter but a 
practical political organ. 



CHAPTER I. 

At the Beginning. 

When King George announced to his loyal Parliament 
the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace with the American 
Plenipotentiaries, he was made to utter a supplication 
that veiled a precept. "I make it," he said, "my humble 
and earnest prayer to Almighty God . . . that America 
may be free from those calamities which have formerly 
proved in the mother country how essential monarchy is 
to the enjoyment of constitutional liberty." 1 It may be 
doubted that His Majesty repeated this prayer in private. 
We know his resentment over the disappearance from the 
crown of the colonial jewels. That some of his subjects 
were rather hoping calamities would not be avoided, we 
can see from the following prophesies about America's 
future made at the beginning. 

During the war it had been often predicted that if the 
country became free, the States would speedily disinteg- 
rate. 2 It had been pointed out that in the republican con- 
stitutions of the individual commonwealths lay the seeds 
of discord 3 and that "the new states, being altogether 
popular and bearing a greater resemblance to the demo- 
crat] cal cantons of Switzerland than to the laws and ways 
of Great Britain" 4 were likely to become an appendage of 
some European power other than England — probably 

^Hansard, XXIII, 207. 
2Josiah Tucker, Cui Bono, 1781, 116. 

3Jos. Galloway, Cool Thoughts on the Consequences to Great Britain 
of American Independence, 1780, 47. 
4Galloway, Ibid, 47. 

15 



16 AT THE BEGINNING 

France. At the eve of the close of the war Josiah Tucker 
burst into this tirade: 

"As to the future grandeur of America and its being a 
rising Empire, under one head, whether republican, or 
monarchical, it is one of the idlest, and most visionary 
notions, that ever was conceived even by writers of ro- 
mance. For there is nothing in the genius of the people, 
the situation of their country, or the nature of their dif- 
ferent climates, which tends to countenance such a sup- 
position. On the contrary every prognostic that can be 
formed from a contemplation of their mutual antipathies, 
and clashing interests, their difference of governments, 
habitudes and manners — plainly indicates that the Ameri- 
cans will have no center of union among them, and no 
common interest to pursue when the power and govern- 
ment of England are finally removed. Moreover, when 
the intersection and disunion of their country by great 
Bays of the sea, and by vast rivers, lakes and ridges of 
mountains; — and above all, when those immense internal 
regions beyond the back settlements, which are still un- 
explored, are taken into account, they form the highest 
probability that the Americans never can be united into 
one compact Empire, under any species of government 
whatever. Their fate seems to be— a DISUNITED PEO- 
PLE till the End of Time." 1 

Tucker thereupon staged an imaginary "Fourth of July 
orator" who declaimed about the tyranny of the republican 
leaders in comparison with which the restrictions under 
England's rule were "mere dwarfs and pigmies." "We 
have been cheated, baffled and betrayed," he cries. "Great 
numbers have left us to return to Europe." As a means 
of averting this dismal future Tucker urged that the Col- 
onies should maintain some nexus with England, and com- 
pose their internal differences by partisan segregation 
after this fashion : The territory to be divided in quarters ; 
all from the Penobscot to the Connecticut, and from the 

Wui Bono? 1781, 117-19. 



AT THE BEGINNING 17 

Hudson to North Carolina to be allotted to the Kepub- 
licans. From the Connecticut to the Hudson and from 
North Carolina southward the land was to be given to the 
Loyalists. 1 

John Andrews, who later put together a four-volume 
history of Britain's multiple wars from 1775-83, in An 
Essay on Republican Principles, 2 started his critique of the 
one time colonies more conservatively by suggesting that 
"the wisest politicians can by no means form the least con- 
jecture in relation to the future contingencies that may 
befall them. The Constitution is at present republican, 
but whether it will continue so in all of them is a point 
which will admit of much dispute. 3 . . . Time only can dis- 
cover. " He at once assumes wisdom, however, and pre- 
dicts that America has lost its "tranquility and happiness 
forever," that its distance will shield it from European 
wars 3 , that if freedom of the press is permitted, it will be 
under a variety of limitations. 4 But the great principle 
upon which America will shipwreck is that republics must 
be geographically small. "What may suit a people shut 
in narrow boundaries may not be equally fitted to a popu- 
lous nation inhabiting a large country. ... It is solely on 
this principle that we should strenuously resist all those 
who betray a predilection for that form of government in 
so extensive a tract of ground as the Island of Great 
Britain." 5 

This accepted bogie of eighteenth century political 
theory we shall meet again and again. 6 It is reiterated at 
every turn by writers with a smattering of political science. 
Andrews puts the doctrine so succinctly that it is worth 
presenting. The grand conclusion of his book and "the 
first maxim established is that a republican government 
is the fittest for a people not numerous, and enclosed 
within a narrow space of land, whose wealth is too moder- 
ate to create and support luxury, and who, at the same 

Ubid. *IMd, 79. 

21783. 5IMd, 17. 

SEssay, 16. 6See Federalist, Papers X & XIV. 



18 AT THE BEGINNING 

time, have no views of extending themselves, and have no 
reason to apprehend invasions." 1 

A traveller who tonred America at the end of the con- 
flict came to conclusions opposite from Andrews on the 
liability of invasion. J. F. D. Smythe, Loyalist and former 
prisoner of war, said that he found the country very weak 
"and a prey to future wars. . . . She has acquired but 
a shadow. . . . Her versatile government will change so 
often that no description can be exact" and ultimately she 
will fall under French control. 2 Similarly William Mac- 
intosh, a man of mystery whom we shall come upon once 
more when he formulates a complete Constitution for the 
United States, wrote in his Travels in Europe, Asia and 
Africa, 3 "their democratical government will not in all 
probability be of long continuance. People .... will not 
long endure the insolence, abuse and depredations of up- 
starts at the head of armies and in the departments of 
power. ... I am convinced that North America will not 
long maintain its independence on Great Britain without 
falling more dependant on some other power or powers of 
Europe." 4 Macintosh thought the "vast, unprotected 
coasts," "internal jealousies," "taxes" and "attitude of 
France" guaranteed this conclusion. 

One of the most dyspeptic of our critics at the beginning 
was stern old William Knox who had been in the Colonies 
and had served as under Secretary of State for America, 
who had witnessed the "growing disposition to independ- 
ence," 5 slipped away to England before the storm, and 
prayed for an adjustment which never came. For the delec- 
tation of good Tories like himself he prophesied as follows : 

i( Whoever thinks America will be a great Empire, let him 
look upon the map of North America, and calculate in 
what number of ages that vast continent will be over- 

lEssay, 80. 

2A Tour in the United States of America, 1784, II., 413, seq. 

31781. 

^Travels, I., 276. 

SExtra Official State Papers, 1789,, I, 44. 



AT THE BEGINNING 19 

spread . . . and the inhabitants then forced to submit to 
government. . . . The present state of the North of 
Asia may help us to form a judgment of what will be the 
state of North and indeed of South America, too. In 
Asia they carry on no foreign trade, and but little inter- 
course with the rest of the world, being equally unknow- 
ing and unknown — and such will the Trans-Alleghaney 
Mountain people be 4,000 years hence, if the world lasts so 
long. The inhabitants of the sea coast, who have much 
property in houses and other buildings and cultivated 
lands, must remain upon the spots they are fixed to, and 
must submit to some sort of government or other, but what- 
ever it may be, it must be feeble and without respect. . . . 

"I will go further and assure those States that if they do 
not recover their characters for integrity in their dealings 
and thereby restore their credit with the British merchants, 
and form such a connection with this country as shall 
secure for them its protection and umperage, they will de- 
generate into barbarous, if not into Barbary states." 1 

If those who bore our separation bitterly saw things a 
little black, the anti-administration men who had lauded 
Burke and Fox during the weary struggle, saw color of 
rose. While King George himself was writing to Fox "that 
revolted state . . . certainly for years cannot establish a 
stable government," 2 John Jebb became lyrical: 

"O America! liberated, triumphant, independent, home 
of heroes, asylum sent to suffering humanity! Grateful 
it is to me to reflect, that in every stage of that calamitous 
contest, my heart has felt, my tongue has confessed, the 
justice of thy cause. America! where . . . the human 
species will at last obtain an asylum ; and every individual 
be permitted to enjoy a larger portion of civil and religious 
liberty than hath been indulged in any age or clime."* 

There were other panegyrists who reached Jebb's alti- 

UMd, 50-52. 

* Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox, 1853, II., 140. 

3The Works of John Jebb, 1787, III., 321. 



20 AT THE BEGINNING 

tude. "A Somersetshire Man/' who contributed a series of 
letters to the Whitehall Evening Post on parliamentary 
representation, rhapsodized on "the rising state next in 
rotation to be the seat of science, of the arts and arms . . . 
the most powerful state in the world." 1 Thomas Day con- 
gratulated humanity on this sample of civil and religious 
liberty. 2 The translator of Abbe Mably's "Observations 
sur le Gouvernment et les Loix des Etats TJnis d'Ameri- 
que" z had to revert to the classics to express his admira- 
tion: 

"0 fortunatos nimium, sua si bona norint." 

In his preface he states that the Americans have the best 
government on record and that they will be a great nation 
if only they keep from aristocracy, monarchy and luxury, 
the avoidance of which last curse, like the imperative 
smallness of republics, being one of the inflexible precepts 
for national welfare in the eighteenth century political 
theory, which we shall run across once more. 

Horace Walpole was delighted too. While the conflict 
was at its height he wrote the Earl of Strafford; "I can- 
not talk, I cannot think on any other subject." 4 In re- 
porting the peace to the Countess of Upper Ossory he 
remarks, "America, secure of her liberty, has an oppor- 
tunity that never occurred in the world before of being 
able to select the best parts of every known Constitution," 5 
and he expresses the hope that the check and balance 
system of England will be adopted. 

Walpole might have criticised the existing system, if he 
had willed. The English writers had the constitutions of 
the individual states before them and the Articles of Con- 
federation. It was a matter of congratulation that all the 

19 May, 1783. 

^Reflections on the Present State of England and the Independence 
of America, 1783, 106. 
31784. 

427 Nov., 1781, Letters (1903-05), XII, 105. 
522 Jan., 1783, Ibid, XIII, 390. 



AT THE BEGINNING 21 

Constitutions were comprised in a single volume. 1 In a 
foreword to a collection of these documents the Keverend 
William Jackson complimented the Legislatures on adopt- 
ing the excellencies of the British Constitution and said: 
"the Americans framed constitutions of government for 
themselves. . . . Not a doubt can exist of their attaining 
the summit of political happiness." Criticizing an edi- 
tion of the same book which came out a year earlier, a 
writer in the Monthly Review concludes thus : "This publi- 
cation contains, take it all together, a greater portion of 
unsophisticated wisdom and good sense, than is perhaps to 
be met with in any other legislative code that was ever yet 
framed." 2 

The editor of the edition reviewed, J. L. DeLolme, after 
praising the system of representation and the bicameral 
legislature, which he says is modeled after England's, ac- 
curately defines the Articles of Confederation as "a treaty 
... by which the United States are intended to be con- 
solidated into one common republic." In fact there was 
little misconception in England as to the powers conferred 
by these Articles 3 and ample information, as we shall 
observe, about their shortcomings in operation. John 
Almon's Remembrancer, which gave such complete infor- 
mation on American affairs, lamented "that so much pains 
have been taken to form and organize the Constitution of 
the several individual governments, and so little has been 
taken in that which respects the whole nation of America." 4 
The writer held that insufficient powers were granted 
Congress for effectual administration. 

Parliament and publicists were clear on the constrained 
prerogatives of the confederate legislature. Speaking to 

iThe Articles were published by Stockdale, 1782 and 1783, by Walker, 
1782, Dublin edition, 1783, in the Annual Register for 1776, in William 
Gordon's History of the United States of America, 1788, III, 24-35, in 
the English translation of LaCroix's Review of the Constitutions of 
Europe and the United States of America, 1792, I, 460-475. 

2Mom. Chronicle, 3 September, 1784; 3 February, 1783. 

3The Whitehall Ev. Post, 19 August, 1783, summarized them: Con- 
gress can resolve anything, but execute nothing. 

42 July, 1782. 



22 AT THE BEGINNING 

the Lord's Address to His Majesty in answer to the speech 
which had announced the preliminary f>eace pact, Lords 
Walsingham, 1 Hawke, 2 and Sackville 3 reminded the upper 
House that in the United States a treaty was not supreme 
law, 1 and that Congress had only power to recommend. 1 
They likened that body to the King at home, calling it "the 
executive arm of America." 3 When opposition ran high to 
pinDing the claim of the Loyalists on the uncertain clause 
of the Treaty, "Congress shall earnestly recommend it to 
the legislatures of the respective States," 4 Shelburne in- 
genuously said, " 'recommend' was all in the nature of 
things we could procure. Peremptory language is not the 
language of a new state." 5 

Lord Sheffield in his famous pamphlet, "Observations on 
the Commerce of the American States," 6 after proving to 
his own satisfaction the worthlessness of American trade, 
after remarking that West of the Alleghanies" the author- 
ity of Congress can never be maintained," 7 made a more 
irritating and exact statement to the effect that "no treaty 
can be made with the American states that can be binding 
on the whole of them. The Act of Confederation does not 
entitle Congress to form more than general treaties . . . 
when treaties are necessary, they must be made with the 
States separately: Each State has reserved every power 
relative to imports, exports, duties, etc., to itself. But no 
treaty at present is necessary." 8 

This view of Congressional impotence was so widespread 
in Great Britain that it was actually doubted by some 
whether Congress had enough authority to ratify the Treaty 
of Peace. 9 Sackville presumed that "all the powers in 
Europe would be kept waiting for the individual States to 
act" on it "since Congress was inadequate." 10 This doubt 

iHansard, XXIII, 386. 4Art. V, Treaty of Paris. 

HMd, 383. ^Hansard, XXII, 412. 

W)id, 404. 61783. 

i Observations, 102. 
BIMd, 110; italics, Sheffield's. 
^Whitehall Ev. Post, 21 August, 1783. 
10S. to Knox, Hist. Mss. Com.; 12th Rep., VI, 192. 



AT THE BEGINNING 23 

played a very material role in the long refusal of the 
Ministry to consider a commercial arrangement or to send 
out a ministeri and consuls. 1 One paper computed that 
"if every State in America sends an envoy resident to the 
Courts of Europe, they will amount to 150 persons." 2 
George Chalmers in a monograph on international legal 
points arising out of the Kevolution wrote: "It is surely 
a question of no small moment whether there at present 
exists within the United States any power which can law- 
fully conclude a commercial treaty." 3 He pointed out that 
while "some of the States imposed duties, New Jersey and 
Connecticut opened free ports/' 4 and he likened the "in- 
curable, irresolute Congress to the boy, humorously rep- 
resented by Keynolds in the dress and figure of Henry 
VIII, and who impressed the mind with the idea of a per- 
sonage of great bulk with little force." 5 

The troubles of Congress formed a favorite butt of ridi- 
cule throughout the hazardous period till the Constitution 
was framed. A "vox et praeterita nihil" "a moonshine 
government," said the columnist who weekly contributed 
"An Abridgement of the State of Politics for the Week" 
to the Whitehall Evening Post.* "They retire from the 
eye of a traveller," wrote an anonymous critic whose "Ob- 
servations" were enclosed by Sir Guy Carleton in a letter 
he sent to Lord North. 7 "A little time and the authority 
of Congress will sink to that of the Council of the Amph- 
ictyons; the State will draw as little together as the 
States of Holland; separate views and separate interests 
must forever divide them," was another comment. 8 

As a result of this condition British opinion at the dawn 
of our existence saw but two possibilities — an immediate 
and fundamental revision of the Articles, or disruption. 9 

iFranklin, Works, VIII, 345; Dip. Corresp., 1783-89, II, 297. 
2Pub. Advertiser, 29 August, 1783. 

^Opinions on Interesting Subjects of Public Law and Commercial 
Policy, 1784, 160. *Ibid, 162. sibid, 164. 65 and 16 August, 1783. 
713 October, 1783, Colonial Office Papers, Canada, Class V, Vol. CXI. 
8Pub. Advertiser, 23 May, 1783. 
sCorresp. and Pub. Papers of John Jay, 1891, III, 66, 95. 



24 AT THE BEGINNING 

If disruption took place, there were four theories of the 
outcome: The United States would become a monarchy, 
probably with Washington as king ; it would come back to 
England; it would become an appendage of France; it 
would split into two or three separate republics. With 
the retirement of Congress to Princeton before the onset 
of the disgruntled unpaid Lancaster soldiers our evil 
wishers over the water thought the deathknell had rung, 
as they did once more when Shay rebelled in Massachu- 
setts. 

"Their High Mightinesses, the United States, or their 
representatives, the Congress, driven from the metropolis, 
the seat of the newborn Empire, to Princetown ( cautiously 
named Princeton) — by whom? By their own soldiers lead 
on by no higher power than Sergeants! Very ominous! 
It looks as if the next convocation of Congress would be 
at King Town under the shadow of royalty." 1 

"At Princetown they certainly will not remain. . . . By 
the time the weather grows warm, they will sit nowhere" 
was the report of a secret agent on American soil whose 
dispatch was forwarded to the Foreign Office by Sir Guy 
Carleton. 2 Laurens, in London, wrote to our Minister at 
Paris that the enemies of the United States had exulted 
and the friends had too much, "abandoned themselves to 
dread that the soldiery had assumed the reins of govern- 
ment and that all the states of America were rushing into 
anarchy." 3 

"The consequence which the people of this country draw 
from these disorders is that the present government of 
America cannot continue under its present form, but that 
either a monarchy or the separation of each state from 
another will take place," said Eichard Champion, a critic 
kindly disposed toward America, in his answer to Shef- 
field's emphatic pamphlet." 4 "It is by no means a certainty." 

^Whitehall Ev. Post, 2 August, 1783. 
213 October, 1783, C. O. Papers, Can., Class 5, Vol. CXI. 
39 August, 1787, Dip. Corresp. of the Rev. (Wharton), VI, 697. 
^Considerations on the . . . Situation of Great Britain and the United 
States, 1784, 136. 



AT THE BEGINNING 25 

he continued, "that Congress will ever recover a permanent 
authority over all the States. The necessity of a sovereign 
power may produce a temporary one to compose the pres- 
ent differences. . . . There will be three great republics, 
according to the dissimilitude of their manners, customs, 
and commerce. The New England States will make one. 
Nature has united them in the strongest manner. New 
York, the Jerseys, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia 
will form another, the richest and most powerful. . . . 
The third government in America will be the Carolinas and 
Georgia." 1 So confident was Champion of this outcome 
that he recommended the immediate appointment of three 
consuls that they might be in the different sections when 
the rift came. 

Rumors of anarchy and recourse to the protection of 
Great Britain or France were rife on every hand. 2 It was 
reported that Washington was so disgusted with affairs 
that he had left for Europe. 3 Sadness overcame Franklin 
as he contemplated the coming ruin of his country. 4 Carle- 
ton, addressing Lord North from New York, seemed to 
corroborate the London paragraphs by stating that "an- 
other revolution is inevitable and at no great distance." 
He said there were four factions in the States, the "fierce 
Republicans," those who looked back to Great Britain, 
many who "turn their eyes to General Washington and 
consider him the only character able to preserve them from 
anarchy and destruction" and "there are in the different 
states persons who boldly assert that a king is indispens- 
ably necessary for the tranquility of the country." 5 

Another factor besides Congressional weakness which 
made Englishmen prone to believe an eruption at hand 

Ubid, 142. Same view expressed by E. Bancroft, 8 November, 1783, 
C. O. Papers, Can., Class 5, Vol. CXI. 

^Whitehall Ev. Post, 2 January, 31 July, 9 and 18 August, 1783; 
Morn Post, 25 July and 11 December, 1783 ; Polit. Mag., May and August. 

ZMorn. Post, 28 August and 1 September, 1783. 

±Mom. Post, 11 December. 

513 October, 1783, C. O. Papers, Ibid. 



26 AT TEE BEGINNING 

was the libidinous republicanism supposed to be rampant 
in the late revolted colonies. Our friends like Jebb called 
it "divine liberty." The King's followers who had seen 
this divine liberty take the form of armed resistence called 
the goddess a less soft name. After independence was won 
satirists parodied the progress of American Republican- 
ism in squibs like this : 

"The relaxation of government is so great at present and 
the levelling principle among the lower classes so predom- 
inant that there are in fact hardly any servants to be 
found. People are highly dissatisfied with their present 
rulers, the majority of them being well known to be beg- 
gars." 1 

"They are all Kings, all rulers, all Judges of the Court : 
A perfect level and equality of character prevails through- 
out so that every lady may cook her own meat and every 
gentleman black his own shoes." 1 In despair people were 
leaving the country; the population had decreased im- 
mensely since British rule had ended. This last belief was 
prevalent. 2 

A way out of chaos in English eyes, if we may judge by 
the newspaper columns, was a recasting of the Articles 
with the provision of a central government of real sub- 
stance. They seemed at first to have considered it a matter 
of course that this would be done. "Immediately after 
the receipt of official information regarding the recog- 
nition of the independence of America by Parliament, 
Congress will seriously apply themselves to the arduous 
business of forming a code of laws for the government of 
the several provinces," stated the Whitehall Evening Post, 
Jan. 4th, 1783. 3 On July 31st it printed an account an- 
nouncing that the United States "by their Deputies in 
Congress, have agreed to and finally settled upon a second 
Treaty of Union, offensive and defensive, very similar to 

iMorn. Post, 30 June, 25 July, 6 and 18 October, 1783. 
ZMorn. Post., 10 September, 1783; Lon. Chronicle, 20 May, 1784; 
Smythe, Travels, II, 413. 

3Ditto, Pub. Advertiser, 20 February and 21 August, 1783. 



AT THE BEGINNING 27 

their last." The statement was denied in the Public Ad- 
vertiser of September 17th. "Not the least alteration has 
been made/' it was asserted. 

Two English admirers then came forward with proposed 
remedies for the situation. They were Thomas Pownall, 
successively colonial Governor of Massachusetts, New Jer- 
sey, and South Carolina, who had been a spectator of the 
Congress of Albany, 1 and knew the difficulties in the way 
of closer union, and the non-conforming Richard Price, 
whom we shall meet again when he delivers a discourse 
on the love of country which sets Edmund Burke compos- 
ing some frantic reflection on the French Revolution. 
Price's heart was in the American cause. Until his death 
he termed the American conflict "glorious." 2 He was a fre- 
termed the American conflict "glorious." 2 He was a fre- 
quent correspondent of "the fathers." In 1778 Congress 
wanted him to come to this country to manage the finances 
of the Confederacy. 3 In 1783 Yale conferred upon him the 
degree of Doctor of Laws. 4 To his view of the critical 
period under the Articles we shall have occasion to recur. 

Pownall's corrective advice 5 started with a generaliza- 
tion that must have puzzled "Their Freedoms," the sover- 
eigns, "that is the citizens," of America : 

"Feel as one soul the concentrated vigor of sovereign 
imperium: feel the self poise of your natural station, the 
center and balance of your force, the course and range of 
your organized energy, the spring of actuality in your 
political person, and you will find it no difficult matter to 
stand firm on the basis of your sovereignty." 6 

After additional welter of words and lengthy congratula- 
tions to "Human Nature" on American liberty, Pownall 
gets down to a remedy for governmental defects: Grant 
Congress power to negotiate treaties, he says, and create 
an executive organ. "Some caution is necessary lest the 

Wict. Nat. Bio., XLVI, 265. 

^Discourse on Love of Country. 

Wip. Rev. Corresp., Sparks, II, 47. 

Wict. Nat. Bio., XLVI, 335. 

5 A Memorial Addressed to the Sovereigns of America, 1783; 

zibid, 17. 



28 AT THE BEGINNING 

Committee of the States sitting in the recess of Congress, 
the representation of a representation, should in ordinary 
supersede Congress. But does not the occasion of appoint- 
ing such a Committee arise from a defect, namely that of 
not providing for the administrative part of government?" 1 

For the executive he recommends "a mixt monarchical 
form." Let there be two annually elected consuls, of equal 
powers and dignities, responsible to the States at large, 
not Congress. Let them have high honors and titles — 
Protectors, Stadtholders, Presidents — and represent "the 
majesty of the people." Each will be a check on the other, 
both will be a check on Congress, from whose mandates 
they shall have an appeal to the States. And Congress 
shall have a check on them by the stipulation that the Sec- 
retary of Congress shall sign each of their acts. Pownall 
neglects to say in what manner the consuls are to be 
elected or to be responsible to the states. 2 

With Washingtonian sagacity he bids the young nation 
"avoid faction and entangling alliances." Confederations, 
like youths, are prona libidines; after the unifying com- 
pulsion of an external enemy is removed, faction may 
raise its head. Further political prescription for a success- 
ful future includes rotation in office, full representation 
of the people, steps toward eliminating slavery, religious 
freedom, free trade, no imprisonment for debt, and a 
modification of oaths. 3 

Price, in his panacea, 4 placed a finger on another crying 
weakness of the Articles when he suggested that the States 
grant Congress complete power over raising revenue and 
coining money. He wanted full treaty making preroga- 
tive conferred. The Legislature was to be kept small and 
proportioned to the population after a census had been 
taken. For the executive and judicial branches no reform 
was offered. Avoidance of hereditary titles, primogeniture, 
test oaths, a standing army and of foreign trade were the 

Ubid, 100. zibid, 46. Ubid, 93. 

^Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution, 1784. 



AT THE BEGINNING 29 

open sesame to political success in Price's plan, provid- 
ing they were superadded to his redemption sinking fund 
which should absorb the public debt, and providing also 
the other then existing American institutions were pre- 
served. Price admired the state constitutions and the 
American "yeomanry, distinguished people, clothed in 
homespun, strangers to luxury." 

When he came to write the closing paragraph of his 
optimistic Observations he was forced to admit that actual- 
ities over the water proved his essay to be pitched in too 
high a key. "My hopes are lowered," he said. In fact, at 
the close of the first year of our existence after the war, 
British friend and foe thought that another year might be 
the last. When we reflect that the American experiment 
ran counter to all accepted political tenets of the day, and 
recall the shabby" showing in political practice made by 
our forefathers in 1783 — the year of the Newburg Ad- 
dresses, of New York's refusal to grant power to Congress 
over imports, and of Washington's resignation before an 
almost empty House — we can but acknowledge the sanity 
of English doubters. During these trying times men 
within our borders feared the Confederation would after 
all turn out, in Lord North's phrase, to be "a rope of sand." 
How this view kept gaining credence over the ocean, until 
the Federal Constitution compelled other conclusions, we 
shall see in succeeding chapters. 



CHAPTER II. 

From the Definitive Treaty of Peace to the Annapolis 

Convention. 

The definitive Treaty of Peace was signed September 
3rd, 1783. It was ratified by Congress January 14th, 1784. 
The amazement in England 1 over the fact that Congress had 
difficulty in assembling a quorum even for this important 
negotiation gives the keynote to her attitude toward us in 
the period which we are now to consider. An impotent 
legislature, a discordant union, anarchy uncontrollable, 
poverty, bankruptcy, final confusion and absorption by 
the one time mother country were the verdict of our 
British enemies and the fear of our British friends. 

Their views were based on fact, not, as in the instance 
of the initial prophesies, on inference. It is unnecessary 
to restate here the squalid situation of our national gov- 
ernment in the critical period. We shall see its history 
amply reflected in the British accounts and impressions. 
They indicate full knowledge of the basic circumstances 
which brought turmoil in their train — the apotheosis of 
state individualism, the chaos of the monetary system, 
the inability of Congress to superintend commercial affairs, 
to levy duties and taxes, or to meet the interest on the pub- 
lic debt, the non-payment of quotas, the lack of executive 
head, the necessity upon the central government of acting 
through the states and not directly upon individuals, the 
internal rebellion, inter-state rivalry and financial pros- 
tration. What more concerns us is how England got its 

iLaurens to Pres. of Congress, 24 April, 1784, Dip. Corresp. of Am. 
Rev. (Wharton), VI, 795. 

31 



32 TREATY OF PEACE TO THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 

# 

information and what are the sources upon which our 
opinion of their opinion is to be formed. 

First of all the cabinet kept up a system of espionage. 
Examination of unpublished dispatches in the Colonial 
Office Papers and Foreign Office Records at the Public 
Eecord Office, London, reveals the existence of several 
agents who secretly kept the government advised. There 
is some evidence that at the beginning Great Britain really 
considered reconquering the lost colonies. There is much 
evidence that she watched the progress of affairs across 
the Atlantic with a sleepless eye, perhaps fancying the 
day was not far off when, of their own free will, the dis- 
tracted states would seek to be retaken into the fold. 

Some of the agents are anonymous. Lord Dorchester, 
more commonly known to us as Sir Guy Carleton, while 
Governor General of Canada forwarded in his mails many 
unsigned "Observations," and "Intelligences" which were 
sent to him overland from the States. Other tell-tale dis- 
patches were conveyed to the Ministry direct. They run 
from 1783-1791. A few of these documents are written in 
such masterly fashion and with such illuminating com- 
ment that some relevant portions are printed. They show 
that at least one man of insight and culture served the 
British cause. 

Certain other monthly "Occurrences from New York" 
are signed by P. Allaire, a mediocre person who received 
£200 a year for his underhandness. 1 The communications 
were addressed to Sir George Yonge, Secretary at War, and 
by Yonge passed on to Carmarthen, Grenville, Rose and 
occasionally Pitt. They continue from 1786-90, when 
Carmarthen ordered them stopped. 2 Allaire's method of 
securing facts may be judged from his letter of August 3rd, 
1786, announcing that he had taken in as boarders "David 
Ramsay, Delegate from South Carolina and Col. Lee of 
Virginia. ... My object in permitting these gentlemen 

lAust to Yonge, 2 March, 1791, F. O. Eecs. Amer. Ser. I, Vol. IX. 
2Aust to Yonge, 20 November, 1790, Ibid, Vol. VIII. 



TREATY OF PEACE TO TEE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 33 

in my house was for certain purposes you are no stranger 
to, or be assured I would not have condescended to take 
boarders. ... In long winter evenings something may be 
acquired and learned. 

"You ask to have the debates in Congress — it's impos- 
sible as no person is admitted but the members. I make 
no doubt that some of the members, being commercial men, 
might accept of your offer and do business with your 
house. . . . The President of Congress 1 ' has agreed to 
board with me." 2 Other dispatches prove that the word 
commercial in Allaire's vocabulary meant venal. He said 
he would not propose to Kamsay and Lee "their going 
into the business, as the United States would be too little 
for my residence." 2 

During 1783-4 Edward Bancroft,, who sold to the British 
government Deane's confidences about the mission to 
France during the Revolution, was in this country for- 
warding continual impressions of the blackest hue and 
giving advice as to the best method of getting the colonies 
again under control. After the federal government was 
started Major George Beckwith was ordered from Canada 
on frequent trips to the national seat, and his reports to 
Dorchester were sent across to the home government. 
Beckwith's presence was known to the United States 
officials, 3 but the extent of his underground inquisitive- 
ness was concealed. 

Added to the private agents whose accounts influenced 
the expressed English opinion, there were of course the 
diplomatic and consular officers. Sir John Temple came 
out as first Consul General in 1785, arriving November 
20th. Phineas Bond, who made his headquarters at Phila- 
delphia, became Consul in 1786. George Miller, Consul 
for the Southern States, received his appointment the year 
following. Before the submarine cable and ubiquitous press 
correspondent, the diplomat was a vehicle of news and 

iNathaniel Gorham was President at this time. 
2F. O. Eecs. Amer., Ser. I, Vol. IV. 
3Jefferson, Writings (Ford), I, 173; V. 324. 



34 TREATY OF PEACE TO THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 

moulder of opinion. From the dispatches of these men, 
as later from those of Hammond and Liston, the Min- 
isters, and Hamilton and Macdonogh, the additional Con- 
suls, we shall glean some English criticism of American 
affairs. 1 

Besides the contemporary letters and memoirs, some 
English valuations are to be gathered from editorial ex- 
pressions in the press, and what the popular view must 
have been can be conjectured from the unceasing stream 
of stories about American lawlessness and disruption 
which newspapers and magazines published. They ran 
excerpts from American papers brought by the packet 
boats. They published letters from New York, Boston, 
Philadelphia, Charleston. 2 They purveyed American in- 
telligence received in the most roundabout fashion, regu- 
larly from St. Yago de la Vega and occasionally even via 
Vienna! The worse the news, the more they printed. As 
Jay put it, we really experienced more tranquility than 
"the English newspapers allowed, or their writers seemed 
to wish us." 3 A Swiss gentleman, depending on their ac- 
counts, told Jefferson that he feared Dr. Franklin would 
be stoned by the people for having been instrumental in 
the secession from Great Britain. 4 

During this perilous period scarcely a word of praise 
is to be found anywhere expressed by anyone. In 1784 a 
convention of delegates of the Koyal Burghs of Scotland, 
bent upon parliamentary reform, drank some toasts to "The 
American Congress" and said the American people had 
taught the Scottish to assert their rights, 5 but this en- 
dorsement really related back to the Revolutionary days 
instead of to the contemporary juncture. In 1785 a Fox- 
ite publication lauded American freedom, but admonished 

iBond's letters are in Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, 1896, I, 517-69. A few 
of Temple's are given in the appendices to Bancroft's Hist, of the 
Formation of the Constitution of the United States of America 
(1882). 

2Franklin thought most of them fabricated in London, Works, VIII, 
369. Jefferson thought the writers were employed by the Ministry, 
Writings, IV, 102. ^Papers, III, 188. ^Writings, IV, 34. 

SMorn. Herald, 8 July, 1784. 



TREATY OF PEACE TO THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 35 

the former colonists to form a system of government which 
would establish the authority of Congress. 1 In 1786 
there was considerable praise for the Virginia act of re- 
ligious toleration. 2 But the stern facts of American pro- 
ceedings, added to the bitterness of the Tories 3 and the 
general dissatisaction with the legislation of the States 
in alleged violation of the treaty guarantees about Loyalist 
property and ante-bellum merchant's debts precluded any 
sentiments of benevolence. 

In general it may be said that British predictions at this 
time were six : There would be another revolution. There 
would be no government at all. There would be general 
financial ruin. The States would not act as a nation. They 
would come back to the supervision of Great Britain, as a 
large American party already desired. The "most miser- 
able country/' "the Disunited States/' because of mutual 
jealousies and the diverse interests of the agrarian and 
commercial classes, 4 would break into two or three 5 or thir- 
teen 6 independent republics. As a consequence of these ex- 
pectations the Ministry disregarded our commercial over- 
tures, and further seem to have busied themselves injuring 
our reputation on the continent. 7 

The inference that there would be no government and 
another revolution was based on the impotence of Con- 
gress. "We hear that the Committee of the States which 
were left by Congress are dispersed, so that the government 
of the United States is entirely suspended." 8 "The state 
of Legislative power is such in the United States as to give 
alarming symptoms that some other change will take place 
in that continent," said the London Chronicle shortly 
before it announced the secession of seven members of 
Congress." 9 Those who attend are mainly actuated by the 

iPol. Herald, I, 25. 

ZGents, Mag., May and September, 1785. 

3For Johnson's attitude in 1784, see Boswell's Life (Hill, 1887), IV, 
283. 

4Adams to Jay, Works, VIII, 289. 

5Deane to Beaumarchais, 2 April, 1784, Deane Papers, N. Y. Hist. 

GLond. Chronicle, 2 November, 1784. 

iPost, 42. SLon. Chronicle, 2 November, 1784. 926 February, 1784. 



36 TREATY OF PEACE TO THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 

desire of preserving the appearance of regular govern- 
ment/' said another paper. 1 Though six weeks late in 
coming together already, "still but four states are repre- 
sented and some of the Southern members have gone home 
disgusted/' was a further observation. 2 Congress is "ut- 
terly contemptible/' 3 "too feeble to command either respect 
or obedience/' 4 "have neither power, authority, nor credit, 
each state taking pride in showing their sovereignty and 
separate authority," 5 wrote Allaire, Beckwith and Temple 
respectively. Eefusal of the States to pay quotas or to 
grant power over navigation laws, and the lack of an 
executive branch were duly dwelt upon. 6 . The Political 
Magazine quotes McFingal, 

"You shall be viceroys, it's true, 
But we'll be viceroys o'er you." 

"Everything hastens to another revolution in America," 
wrote William Smith to Nepean. 7 Other comments were : 
"The country will experience some dreadful political con- 
vulsion ;" 8 "it is more than probable that general confusion 
will take place;" 9 "every ship from the new states brings 
fresh accounts of their deranged affairs — they have be- 
come progressively worse and worse and now bid fair to 
come to an issue;" 10 "there are two classes of merchants 
and farmers who divide nearly all America, are discon- 
tented and distressed. Some great change is approach- 
ing." 11 

Poverty, bankruptcy and business inertia were repre- 

Wuo. Advertiser, 8 December, 1785. 

2Smitb. to Sydney, 11 January, 1785, F. O. Eecs., Amer., Ser. I, Vol. 
III. 

3 "Intelligence," 4 June, 1785, Ibid. 

4B. to Fraser, 28 May, 1785, F. O. Recs., Vol. III. 

5T. to C, 4 August, 1786, F. O. Recs., Vol. IV. 

GMorn. Post, 16 April, 1785; Morn. Herald, 30 June, 1786; Gents. 
Mag., August, 1784 ; Pol. Mag., April, 1787. 

77 August, 1785, F. O. Recs., Vol. III. 

sGents. Mag., February, 1784. 

9T. to C., 4 October, 1786, F. O. Recs., Vol. IV. 

lOMorn. Post, 30 June, 1785. 

n"Intelligence," 4 June, 1785, F. O. Recs., Vol. III. 



TREATY OF PEACE TO THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 37 

sented as contributing in bringing on the revolution 
which might lead the colonies under the old flag. The 
form of government was destructive of trade and com- 
merce. 1 It was said that not a man in Georgia could 
afford a bottle of wine. 2 There were daily bankruptcies in 
New York and its people were ruined. 3 Business every- 
where was at a standstill. 4 Cattle were being seized for 
taxes from "Boston to the Carolinas." 5 

"There is a new mode of taxation in the State of New 
York which cannot fail to be pleasant to a people who are 
so fond of freedom ; this is proportioning the collection to 
the amount of goods a man may have in his shop, and seiz- 
ing perhaps an hundred pounds at a time in the shop of 
a wealthy man, and taking not a fraction from his neigh- 
bor." 6 "People are fleeing to Vermont to avoid the anarchy 
and confusion which prevail in other quarters." 7 

In consequence of all these reports the English papers 
were filled with warnings to avoid business with Ameri- 
can merchants who would not pay debts contracted before 
the war and could not pay those accruing since. 8 The 
London Gazette of 19 October, 1784, announces the fail- 
ure of Messrs. Blanchard and Lewis for £227,000 "because 
American merchants won't pay." Two days later another 
unpaid English factor shot himself "and left a discon- 
solate widow and nine children/' 9 American knavery was 
a favorite theme. The laws of the states discriminating 
against English creditors were published and denounced. 
"Why should the Americans call the Algerines pirates?" 
asked the Public Advertiser. 10 The complaints of British 
merchants to the Ministry demanding some protection 
led to the appointment of Phineas Bond. 11 

iPol. Mag., January, 1785. 

HMd., February, 1785. 

3"Intelligence," 4 June, 1785, F. O. Eecs., Vol. III. 

±Lon. Chronicle, 26 February, 1784. 

5Morn. Post, 25 April, 1785. 

SMorn. Post, 2 May, 1785. 7Ditto. 

*Morn. Post, 29 June, 1785. 

*Lon. Chronicle, 21 October, 1784. 1012 August, 1786. 

ii'See Bond's first letter, Am. Hist. Assoc. Rept., 1896, I, 517. 



38 TREATY OF PEACE TO THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 

Assertions of American political and financial anarchy 
were broad in 1785, but broader in 1786. In the former 
year the Political Magazine told its readers that chaos was 
at hand — three counties in North Carolina revolting, Ver- 
mont and the New Hampshire disaffected, the State of 
New York refusing to grant Congress power to lay an im- 
post, Connecticut "petitioning to come under the protec- 
tion of Great Britain," the island of Nantucket about to 
decide (sic) forgery and bankruptcy making alarming 
progress." 1 Under the caption "False Prophecies for 1786 
and Kealities of 1786" the Public Advertiser ran a para- 
graph which, though over-stressed, sums up the general 
English attitude toward the close of the perilous period : 

"Anarchy their King — laws disregarded — Justice driven 
from their dominions — roguery encouraged by their wild 
assemblies — a people disunited in all — their shipping rot- 
ting in their neglected ports — their Empire crumbling to 
atoms — treacherous — wretched and poor — harrassed by the 
Aborigines — unable to avenge or protect themselves, they 
are insulted by all — they are a people not to be trusted — 
a people laughed at and despised by all nations — an ex- 
ample of rebellion and ingratitude ! ! !" 2 

There was but one way out from the English viewpoint 
— return to the protecting aegis of Great Britain, 3 a con- 
clusion, it was believed, devoutedly wished by a large 
number of our citizens. We have seen the solution offered 
in 1783. We shall see it suggested again. "It is under- 
stood," Washington wrote to Jacob Read, "that the British 
Cabinet wished to recover the United States." 4 In 1784 
their agent Bancroft writes that the best way of breaking 
the colonies in twain and resecuring them is to enforce 
strict commercial discrimination until they "clamor loudly 

lAugust, 1785. 

212 August. 

zPolit. Herald, 1785, II, 38 ; Eur. Mag., December, 1786 ; Adams to Jay, 
21 October, 1785, Works, VIII, 325; Smith to Jay, 6 December, 1785, 
Dip. Corresp. (1783-89), V, 377. 

4X1 August, 1784, Works, X, 398. 



TREATY OF PEACE TO THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 39 

... for the former connection with Great Britain." 1 
Temple, two years later, comes back to the old theme: 
"Perhaps in the hour of their distress and confusion some 
or all of the states may seek for European friendship, 
council and advice, if they do so, my most hearty wish is, 
that wisdom may lead them to look up to that sovereign 
to whom they once happily belonged, and who only of all 
sovereigns on earth, hath or can have any unfeigned regard 
for their real welfare and happiness. My voice and my 
utmost influence in this country, still guided by prudence, 
shall steadfastly and faithfully correspond with my 
wishes." 2 

These accounts and predictions were not merely the 
space-filling fancies of newspaper hacks and the expressions 
of secret agents and diplomats eager to please the ear of 
the Foreign Office. They reflect the thoughts of persons 
of low and high degree. No less a man than our former 
advocate, Edmund Burke, acquiesced in such deductions; 
and like comments were sent out by Colonel Thomas 
Dundas to our former enemy, Lord Cornwallis, then in 
India. 

When Burke, in the summer of 1785, was on his way 
from London to Glasgow where he was to be reinstalled 
Eector of the University, he stopped to visit Thomas 
Somerville, the divine, at Jedburgh. With Burke was his 
son, Windham, and Sir Gilbert Eliott. Writing his 
memoirs in 1814, Somerville says of this visit : 

"I was not a little surprised by the disparaging and even 
contemptuous terms in which he expressed himself with 
regard to the Americans. . . . He said he would not be 
surprised at the defection of the colonies from the union. 
I believe he mentioned the Southern States. Their con- 
stitution was not then settled, and the democratic party 
threatened to overpower the interests of the federalists, to 
whom he gave full credit for wisdom and patriotism. Of 

126 August, 1784, F. O. Papers, Ibid, Vol. III. 
24 October, 1786, F. O. Papers, IUd, Vol. IV. 



40 TREATY OF PEACE TO THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 

Washington he spoke with enthusiasm, and said that his 
character would be transmitted to the latest ages as the 
first of heroes and patriots." 1 

Dundas wrote Cornwallis in 1786: "The Americans are 
a most unhappy people. Every day brings us a new ac- 
count of their distracted state. Some accounts say that the 
present wish of the country is to return to the situation 
they were in before the war." 2 

The Cabinet, too, seems to have been convinced that 
America had no central government and had little liklihood 
of getting one. 3 It was hostile, 4 despite the King's diplo- 
matic assurance that he "would be first to meet the friend- 
ship of the United States." 5 Evasively, if not discourte- 
ously, it repeatedly kept our envoys waiting. When in 
April, 1786, Carmarthen granted an interview to the Com- 
missioners seeking a commercial treaty his Lordship 
"harped on the old string, the insufficiency of the powers 
of Congress." 6 The string had been harped on somewhat 
stridently in Dorset's dispatch on the offer to conclude a 
commercial arrangement, which set forth in official form 
the Cabinet's view of American government during this 
period : 

"I have been in answer thereto instructed to learn from 
you, gentlemen, what is the real nature of the powers with 
which you are invested, whether you are merely com- 
missioned by Congress, or whether you have received 
separate powers from the respective states. A Committee 
of North American merchants have waited upon his 
Majesty's principal Secretary of State for foreign affairs 
to express how anxiously they wish to be informed upon 
this subject, repeated experience having taught them in 

iMy Own Life and Times, Thomas Sumerville, 1861, 222. 

Worresp. of Charles, First Marquis Cornwallis, 1859, I, 279. 

3Adams to Jay, 19 July, 1785, Dip. Corresp. (1783-89), IV, 241. 

4Jeff. to Page, 4 May, 1786, Writings (Ford), IV, 212. Jay and Wash- 
ington thought England had a hand in Shay's rebellion, Jav to Jeff., 
4 December, 1786, Dip. Corresp. (1783-89) III, Washington, Works, XI. 

5 Adams to Jay, 2 June, 1785, Dip. Corresp. (783-89), IV, 198. 

&Keport of Commissioners to Jay, 25 April, 1786, Dip. Corresp. (1783- 
89), II. 336. 



TREATY OF PEACE TO THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 41 

particular, as well as the public in general, how little the 
authority of Congress could avail aught in any respect, 
when the interest of any one individual state was even 
concerned, and particulaly so, where the concerns of that 
particular State might be supposed to militate against such 
resolutions as Congress might think proper to adopt. 

The apparent determination of the respective states to 
regulate their own separate interests, renders it absolutely 
necessary, towards forming a permanent system of com- 
merce that my Court should be informed how far the Com- 
missioners can be duly authorized to enter into any en- 
gagements with Great Britain, which it may not be in the 
power of any one of the States to render totally fruitless 
and ineffectual." 1 

Jefferson, who was one of the Commissioners addressed, 
has left it on record that he knew this letter was couched 
in softer tones than were the instructions of the Ministry 
to Dorset. 2 When Adams, another of the Commissioners, 
appeared at St. James's as our first Minister to Great 
Britain, 3 in one of the newspapers which continually 
ridiculed him, appeared this squib: 

"Mr. Adams is in rather an unusual predicament, for 
though he represents all the States, he in fact represents 
none, at least no one particular State is answerable for 
his appointment, neither can he name one that is ready to 
pay his expenses." 4 

The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, writing to Pitt about 
a treaty containing a "most favored nation" clause said, 
"Let me ask . . . whether the American states are to be 
considered among the 'nations?' " 5 It seems likely that 
uncertainty of this kind, as much as any other circum- 

1D. to Commissioners, 26 March, 1785, Dip. Corresp. (1783-89), II. 297. 
^Writings, IV, 42. 

31 June, 1785, A. to Jay, Works, VIII, 254. 
Worn. Post, 14 June, 1785. 

5Mss. of Duke of Eutland, Hist. Mss. Com., 14th Rept., Append., Pt. I, 
III, 338. 



42 TREATY OF PEACE TO THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 

stance, materially influenced the decision to avoid a com- 
mercial treaty and to omit an ambassador. 1 

Lafayette asserted that the English Cabinet, not content 
with scorning intercourse with the States, was poisoning 
the minds of the administrations in European countries. 2 
"I find the misrepresentations of Great Britain have not 
been fruitless/' he wrote Jefferson from Vienna, and said 
that the King of Prussia asked him about the future exist- 
ence of America. 3 "Some thought that democratical in- 
stitutions will not, can not, last, that the States will quarrel 
with each other, that a King, or at least a nobility were 
indispensable. " 4 London gloated over "the contempt with 
which America is held throughout Europe." 5 Franklin 
said he published the American Constitution in French 
and gave a de luxe copy to each ambassador at Paris and 
another for his master to counteract the British gossip. 6 
The envoys accredited to King George's court were ever 
asking Adams about the divisions between the states. 7 

Our English liberal friends, quite reduced in number, 
viewed all this business with alarm. Further, the founda- 
tion of the Order of Cincinnati they considered a mistake. 
Walpole wrote the Countess of Upper Ossory, "American 
news may now be a neutral article : Washington, qui, il me 
semble, tranche un pen du roi, has instituted a military 
order, and calls it the order of Cincinnati, ce qui tranche 
un pen du pedant."* He later speaks as if he thought the 
society was to act as an upper house. 9 The newspapers 
cried out that the Cincinnati proved that colonists could 
not get on without a nobility. 

Price, who had composed the glowing Observations, dis- 

iBancroft, Hist, of the Constitution, II, 469. 

2Washington comments on the policy, Works, XI. Dumas reports it 
from The Hague, Dip. Corresp. (1783-89), VII, 274. 
Wip. Corresp. (1783-89), I, 434. 
4Ditto. 

5Pub. Advertiser, 24 August, 1785. 
tWorks, VIII, 391. 
7 Adams, Works, VIII, 347. 
^Letters (1903-05), XIII, 105. 
Hbid, 1108. 



TREATY OF PEACE TO THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION 43 

liked the Cincinnati ; and he was distraught by the events 
over the water. He confesses in a second edition of his 
optimistic work that he fears his expectations Utopian, but 
to Jay he writes that he still dreams of a powerful, happy 
people "with a strong federal union. ... At present your 
affairs, I am afraid, are far from being in this train." 1 
Lansdowne, addressing the same correspondent, states that 
he is "anxious to hear that the government of the United 
States has taken a solid consistence. . . ." 2 On December 
19th, 1786, the Public Advertiser reported that the An- 
napolis Convention had called a meeting of delegates at 
Philadelphia the following May to revise the Articles of 
Confederation. 

125 November, 1786, Jay, Papers and Corresp., Ill, 219. 

24 September, 1785, Jay, Ibid, III, 189. W. S. Smith wrote Jay, 
9 February, 1787, that Landsdowne had publicly suggested an alliance 
between Great Britain and the U. S., Dip. Corresp. (1783-89), V, 452. 



CHAPTEE III. 
At the Dawn of Federal Existence. 

Though the English estimate of the American govern- 
ment was at its lowest ebb in the Fall and Winter of 1786, 
there was but little rise in the Spring and Summer of 1787. 
Stories of anarchy and disunion 1 and poverty 2 continued. 
The approaching Convention, repeatedly mentioned in 
newspaper and official dispatch, was looked at askance. 3 
It would probably accomplish little; 4 perhaps divide the 
country into four parts; 5 perhaps choose Washington 
"Stadtholder." 6 Strange rumors of the proceedings within 
the closed doors at Philadelphia were circulated by London 
gossip. Something was afoot behind the doors, but what 
it would turn out to be was a subject of conjecture, dis- 
tortion, and amusing inference. 

In the Colonial Office Papers preserved in the Public 
Record Office, London, there is a dispatch from one of 
Britain's secret agents in New York sent to Sydney via 
Dorchester. 7 It is apparently written in March, 1787. 
Dorchester characterizes the communication "of a very 
interesting nature." It is so interesting and so ably written 
that it is printed below nearly entire. Further, it sums 
up admirably the general English opinion in 1787, with 

Wng. Rev., March; Pol. Mag., and Gentleman's, May; Whitehall Ev. 
Post, 6 Jan., 18 and 24 March; Bristol Journal, 6 and 13 January. 

2Mom. Chronicle, 24 July ; Whitehall Ev. Post, 12 July. 

^Whitehall Ev. Post, 6 July; Pol. Mag., May. 

4Temple to Car., 7 June, F. O. Kecs., Vol. V. 

5 Pol. Mag., August. 

*Mom. Chronicle, 4 August. 

7With Dorchester to Sydney, 10 April, 1787, in C. O. Papers, Canada, 
Class 42, Vol. L. 

45 



46 AT THE DAWN OF FEDERAL EXISTENCE 

illuminating sidelights on American views ; and it contains 
some full but elusive references to the contemporary move- 
ment in America for summoning one of King George's sons 
to be our King: 

"At this moment there is not a gentleman in the States 
from New Hampshire to Georgia who does not view the 
present government with contempt, who is not convinced 
of its inefficacy, and who is not desirous of changing it for 
a monarchy. 

"They are divided into three classes. 1 

"The first class propose a federal government somewhat 
resembling the State of New York, with an annual ex- 
ecutive, Senate and House of Assembly. 

"The second wish to have a Sovereign for life with two 
triennial Houses of Parliament. 

"The third are desirous of establishing a hereditary 
government as nearly resembling Great Britain as possible. 

"Of the first class, many look up to General Washington ; 
those of the second and third classes cast their eyes to the 
House of Hanover for a Sovereign; they wish for one of 
the King's sons. 2 

"The third class is the most powerful and composed of 
some of the ablest men in the States. 

"They esteem the plan of the first class every way inad- 
equate, that of the second in favor of an elective monarchy, 
very objectionable, witness the condition of Poland; but 
view their own system, if successful, as affording the fairest 
prospect of respectable and stable government. They have 
already fixed upon two gentlemen to go to Great Britain 
upon this subject, when they judge that matters are ripe 
for it. 

"As to the Convention to be held in Philadelphia in May 
next, however able, individually considered, it is impractic- 

iDitto, Bristol Journal, 16 June, 1787. 

2The Duke of York, sometimes called the Bishop of Osnaburg 1 . For 
American discussion of a king, see G. T. Curtis, Constitutional History 
of the United States (1903), I, 623-26; Max Farrand Framing of the 
Constitution (1913), 173-4; Alexander Hamilton, Works (1904), I, 423. 



AT THE DAWN OF FEDERAL EXISTENCE 47 

able for them to adopt any measures capable of giving 
vigor to the present federal government, which will be ap- 
proved first in Congress and afterwards in the different 
legislatures. 

"In fact, the gentlemen composing the third class expect 
nothing from the convention in their public capacity, but 
wish to profit from such a meeting, to know fully each 
other's opinions, to form arrangements, and to take such 
steps as are proper to give them effect. 

"The present federal government is weakness itself, it 
must fall to pieces in the course of next Winter, and is held 
together now merely by the prospect of the Convention's 
being able to do something effective. 1 

"The present public distresses are unsurmountable. 

"Foreign powers are pressing for their money. 

"France turning her claims over to Holland. 

"The French interest sunk to nothing. 

"Mr. Jay, the Minister for foreign affairs, has reported 
fully to Congress that not only the facts stated in the 
memorial transmitted by Lord Carmarthen are true, 2 but 
that there are many others of a similar nature not known 
in Great Britain: Congress are fully sensible of these in- 
fractions, but find themselves so feeble in every respect, 
that they do not choose to venture any public recommenda- 
tion to the States on the subject : they will remain in New 
York. 

"The gentlemen of the second class do not wish Vermont 3 
to confederate at present, although no strangers to the 
part she has acted. They wish Great Britain to retain the 
forts at this time, and to be formed at present, but think 
a few particular indulgences might be well. 

"There is no living under the present government. 

iDitto, Allaire, 17 March; Bond, 1 May; Temple, 3 May; F. O. Eecs. 
Amer., Ser. I, Vol. V. 

228 February, 1786, Dip. Corresp. (1783-84), V, 17. 

3The Colonial Office Papers, Canada, contain many interesting- let- 
ters relating 1 to the efforts of the Aliens to attach Vermont to Canada. 



48 AT THE DAWN OF FEDERAL EXISTENCE 

"They are resolved to run all risks in carrying their 
points. 

"Even the Presbyterian clergymen are become advocates 
for monarchy; the community in general finding from ex- 
perience, that a Republican system, however beautiful in 
theory, is not calculated for an extensive country. 

"General Washington has been lately sounded upon the 
subject, but nothing will induce him to return into pub- 
lic life, conscious that he has acquired greater military 
glory, perfectly satisfied with his condition, without chil- 
dren, and having no relations, who are men of ambition 
or active talents, this gentleman is determined to pass the 
remainder of his life in retirement and peace. 

"Notwithstanding this opinion concerning General 
Washington, there is another which suggests that this 
gentleman looks forward to the supreme power, and that 
he will not be present at the Convention from motives of 
policy ; and that Dr. Griffiths of Virginia who is soon going 
to England in hopes of being consecrated a Bishop, had 
been employed by him to sound the country on this very 
subject. 

"From other sources of information it is understood that 
men of ability in the States are in general strongly im- 
pressed with the necessity of establishing a monarchy; 
they find their present government neither efficient nor 
respectable; they are greatly divided in opinion upon this 
subject, whether they shall raise an American to this 
dignity, or procure a Sovereign from Great Britain or from 
France. General Washington has a party of friends, he 
will not be present at the Convention in May, but a strong 
idea prevails, that he looks forward to that dignity, has 
done so for years, and that to this object he sacrificed the 
interests of the late continental army. 

"It is imagined that the Convention will form the out- 
line of some general plan, which they will submit to Con- 
gress for their approbation, and that of the States, and 
then adjourn. 



AT THE DAWN OF FEDERAL EXISTENCE 49 

"Some gentlemen are so convinced of the necessity of 
having an Upper House, as well as a Sovereign, that they 
intend the proposing to raise all the members who formed 
the Congress of one thonsand seven hundred and seventy- 
five to this dignity and even to make it hereditary. 

"The general triennial meeting of the Cincinnati and 
a meeting of the American Episcopal clergymen will be 
held in Philadelphia at the same time with the Convention ; 
the Congress remaining in New York." 

G. T. Curtis, mentioning the whisperings about calling 
over the Duke of York, said that he "was not aware that 
this ever became known in England." 1 The foregoing dis- 
patch proves that it was known. Although research has 
uncovered nothing to indicate that the project came to the 
ear of the Duke of York, who was in Prussia from 1781 — 
August 1, 1787, 2 the matter may have been discussed in the 
Cabinet, if we may read behind the following lines of 
Sydney to Dorchester: 

"The report of an intention on the part of America to 
apply for a sovereign of the House of Hanover has been 
circulated here; and should an application of that nature 
be made, it will require a very nice consideration in what 
manner so important a subject should be treated. But 
whatever ideas may have been formed upon it, it will upon 
all accounts be advisable that any influence which your 
Lordship may possess should be exerted to discourage the 
strengthening of the alliance with the House of Bourbon, 
which must naturally follow, were a Sovereign to be chosen 
from any branch of that family." 3 

So at the dawn of federal existence the phantom of some 
reunion with the mother country was still entertained by 
sanguine Britishers. Allaire, in his "Occurences" of May 
3rd, a few days before the Federal Convention was due to 
convene, said in underscored words, "your interests con- 

Wp. Git., Vol. I, 624. 

Wict. Nat. Bio,, XX, 244. 

3C. O. Papers, Can., Class 42, Vol. LI. 



50 AT THE DAWN OF FEDERAL EXISTENCE 

sists in disuniting them . . . and keeping the people of 
the Northern States in a continual ferment. . . . You will 
have them in the position of Ireland soon." Temple was 
uncertain "when or whether ever, a Congress will sit again 
under the present flimsey government of this distracted 
country." 1 He, Bond, and Allaire as well as the English 
press, dwelt on the significance of Rhode Island's declina- 
tion to send delegates to the Convention 2 intended to extend 
the federal powers, "a matter of great doubt and involved 
in much perplexity." 3 " Various are the opinions about 
this same Convention. Many think there will be great 
discord and the Convention break up without doing any- 
thing and in consequence thereof two or three separate 
Congresses for the government of these States be estab- 
lished." 4 

And various were the opinions and reports about its 
doings retailed for English consumption. Franklin and 
Washington were supposed to have had a violent contest 
for the Presidency, the North siding with Franklin, the 
South with Washington, who won by a vote — another in- 
dication of faction in the new land. 5 It was gravely an- 
nounced "that the Federal Convention, finding how dif- 
ficult it will be to pay off the national debt to foreigners 
within the time stipulated have "Resolved, That it be 
recommended to the Congress of the United States to set 
up the whole State of Rhode Island for sale to the highest 
bidder or bidders." A Georgian, having estimated the 
worth of his plantations "and presuming them to be con- 
siderably superior to the real value of the State of Rhode 
Island, has already transmitted to Congress his proposals 
for purchasing it." 6 

The principal object of the Convention now sitting is "to 

iTo Car., 4 January, F. O. Eecs. Amer., Ser. I, Vol. V. 
2T. to Car., 7 June ; B. to Car., 2 July ; "Occurrences," 3 May, Ibid. 
3Bond to Fraser, 4 February, Ibid. 
4T. to Car., 5 April, Ibid. 

5Gen. Ev. Post, 2 Aug-ust; Bristol Journal, 4 August; Pub. Advertiser, 
13 September. 

tMorn. Chronicle, 10 November. 



AT TEE DAWN OF FEDERAL EXISTENCE 51 

form a federal constitution . . . either by a revision of 
the present Articles of Confederation or by adopting others 
entirely new," wrote Temple, as he expressed regret about 
the secret sessions. 1 Allaire insisted that nothing would 
come of the meeting. 2 The progress of the Convention, its 
tardy opening and its adjournments were duly detailed. 3 In 
the newspapers there were rumors of breakup ; 4 again, that 
the Convention was to grant power to Congress to lay 
imposts for 21 years, to levy a poll tax, prohibit slave 
importation for 25 years, raise an army and maintain a 
navy, and "to sit as General Assembly of the United States 
for six months in each year." 5 The press complained of 
secrecy, too. 6 

The time when the United States delegates were reported 
to be busy at new modeling the political frame work would 
have been the time of all times, it seems, for our friendly 
advisers like Pownall and Price to come forward with 
ready-made schemes of government. 7 Price contented him- 
self with praising the principles laid down in John Adam's 
"Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of 
America," lately published at London, and exclaiming, 
"May Heaven, for the sake of mankind give them wis- 
dom." 8 The Morning Post had announced that Mrs. 
Macaulay Graham left a spick and span code during her 
visit to America; 9 but the only plan discoverable comes 
from the pen of William Macintosh who had made some 
ugly forebodings when our independence was granted 10 in 
his "Travels in Europe, Asia and Africa." In that volume 
he had proffered "Political Advice to the Dutch," "Re- 

17 June; Ditto, Bond, 2 July. 

2 "Occurrences," July. 

SDispatches, 1 and 2 August. 

^Bristol Journal, 22 September. 

5Mom. Chronicle, 10 November. 

^Whitehall Ev. Post, 22 September. 

7In fact Rush requested Price to send advice. He declined because 
of ill health. Price Letters, 25 May and 27 October, 1787, Proc. Mass. 
Hist. Soc, 2nd Ser., XVII, 262-382. 

8To Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, II, 351. 

97 June, 1785. 
lOAnte, 18. 



52 AT THE DAWN OF FEDERAL EXISTENCE 

flections Suggested to Spain," "How to Govern Hindus- 
tan/' "A Plan for New-Modeling the Government of Cal- 
cutta." The opportunity opened by the proceedings in the 
United States was too good to miss, and on August 20, 
1787, Macintosh mailed from Avignon a lengthy letter to 
the "Hon., His Excellency General Washington, America." 

Macintosh is something of a puzzle. It was said that he 
did not exist. 1 But a Captain Joseph Price testifies, "Mr. 
Macintosh, being the son of a Scottish planter, by a French 
Creole, on one of the West India islands, is as swarthy and 
ill looking a man as is to be seen on the Portugueze walk 
in the Eoyal Exchange. He lives in a grocer's shop in 
Queen Anne's street, East." 2 The mystery arose from 
Macintosh's connction with Francis and his attacks on 
Warren Hastings. Some thought "Macintosh" merely a 
pen-name of Sir Philip. It is clear that the man was vain, 
mediocre, and in Francis's pay. 1 

His hot-house constitution was designed, he says, "to 
legislate, administer and execute without democracy, 
aristocracy or monarchy." 3 A perfect republic was im- 
possible because of "extent of territory." He recommended 
a President, to be addressed "His Highness," a Senate, to 
be addressed "Most Noble, and the title Patrician descend- 
ible," and "Commoners," to be called "Esquires." The 
Commoners were to be selected by the Christian males over 
twenty-five, owning substantial property, and were to 
represent "Provinces, Cities and Towns." From their own 
body the Commoners were to elect one-fifth to sit as a 
Senate. The Senate was to select one of their members 
the ''Supreme" for a term of five years. "And the terri- 
torial property of the Supreme shall be so considerable 
as to contribute to raise his mind superior to mercenary 
views." 

The Supreme was charged with giving his assent to 

^Memoirs of Philip Francis (1867), II, 215. 

2Some Observations . . . on Travels in Europe, Asia and Africa, 1782. 
3Letter and "Plan of Government" in Doc. Hist, of the Con.; Bull, of 
Bolls and Lib., No. 11, Pt. I, 256-64. 



AT THE DAWN OF FEDERAL EXISTENCE 53 

statutes, the appointment of all officers subject to removal 
upon addresses of the Houses, the summoning and pro- 
roguing of parliament, and the pardoning of crime, except 
treason. 

Our English Sieves neglects to make provision for a 
judicial branch and, although he harps on the great dignity 
the Senate should possess, says nothing of its powers, ex- 
cept that the acts of the two Houses shall be obeyed 
throughout the States as well as the ordinances of the 
"Standing Council of State," an imitation of the Privy 
Council, which he annexes to the Executive arm. Mac- 
intosh would have luxury restrained by sumptuary laws, 
taxes apportioned to population and production, freedom of 
conscience and religion, trial by jury and no amending of 
laws — repeal the old ones and enact entirely new statutes. 1 

Before the outline reached Washington, the Convention 
was over and the fruits of its labors published to the 
world. Price wrote, "I am waiting with impatience for 
an account." 2 

Washington acknowledged this plan, without criticism, and enclosed 
the Constitution actually adopted. Doc. Hist, of Con., Ibid, 265. If 
Macintosh contributed nothing- to the inspiration of the delegates, 
one Englishman did. Thomas Jordan sent Franklin a cask of porter. 
Franklin broached it at a dinner he gave the members. The contents 
"met with cordial reception and universal approbation." Franklin, 
Works, IX, 386. 

2To Franklin, Works, VIII, 411, 26 September, 1787. 



CHAPTER IV. 

The Reception of the Constitution. 

There is an antiquarian interest in knowing how and 
when the Constitution which prevented the dire happen- 
ings foretold by our former masters reached English soil. 
P. Allaire was the first of the British agents to send a copy 
to the Ministry "by the ship Peggy, Captain Wallace," 
September 18th, the day following its publication. Bond 
sent an imprint September 20th and another September 
29th. Temple forwarded two copies October 3d, and dupli- 
cates on November 7th, while George Miller, Consul at 
Charleston, mailed one on November 17th. 1 

The ship "Peggy" bore copies for the English press. On 
Tuesday, October 30th, and Wednesday, October 31st, the 
proposed document appeared in the Morning Chronicle, 
on October 30th and November 1st in the London Chronicle 
and in the General Evening Post, on October 31st and 
November 1st in the Public Advertiser and on October 31st, 
November 1st and 2d in the World. The Universal Maga- 
zine ran it in November, the Scots Magazine, in December, 
the Gentlemans Magazine, through both months. It ap- 
peared in the Annual Register for 1787 and Debrett pub- 
lished in pamphlet form on November 7th a "Plan of the 
New Constitution for the United States of America" which 
was later several times reprinted. 2 Of constitutional dis- 

iThe copies are preserved in F. O. Eecs., Amer., Ser. I, Vol. V. 

2The Constitution also appeared in W. Gordon's History of the 
United States of America, 1788, IV, 422-45 ; the preface to McKean and 
Wilson's Commentaries on the Constitution, 1792 ; English translation 
of LaCroix's Review of the Constitution of Europe and the United 
States of America, 1792, I, 475-500 ; London edition of Morse's Ameri- 
can Geography, 1792, 70-92 ; a pamphlet printed by T>. I. Eaton, 1794 ; 
T. Cooper's, Some Information Concerning America, 1794 ; The Patriot's 
Calendar, 1795 ; W. Winterbotham's An Historical View . . . of the 
United States, 1795, I, 210-224. 

55 



56 THE RECEPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION 

cussions, remarks by Franklin and Rusk were frequently 
printed, and McKean and Wilson's "Commentaries on the 
Constitution" was republished in London. It is odd to 
observe that the Federalist papers passed unnoticed and 
that no edition of the collection was published in England 
until 1894. 

English opinion was sensible to the importance of our 
federal charter; it was greeted with considerable commen- 
dation and some carping. "We do not know a subject 
more calculated to attract the attention of the world," 1 
"this is a new epocha from which we may date the exist- 
ence of the United States," 2 said the press. Bond thought 
the Constitution "in probably the best shape in which it 
could have been handed forth to the people — a system of 
government whose energy may correct the present relaxed 
situation of the laws and restore public faith and private 
credit." 3 Miller rejoices because "it promises to rescue 
Congress . . . and to grant sufficient powers to comply with 
and enforce their treaties." 4 Temple criticised the extended 
prerogative entrusted to "the President General of the 
Congress . . . Washington will undoubtedly be first elected 
to that high station. But should there be elected at any 
time hereafter an aspiring able man, the patronage and 
influence such a station would aford (sic) would be very 
great indeed!" 5 

At Court, it was spoken of as an admirable form of 
government which "if adopted, will place the American 
character in a new point of view highly deserving respect. 6 
Lord Carmarthen said to our Minister, "I presume, Mr. 
Adams, that the states will all immediately adopt the new 
constitution. I have read it with pleasure; it is very well 
drawn up." 7 With significance, he simultaneously ex- 

iMonthly Rev., December, 1787. 

ZMorn. Chronicle, 14 November, 1787. 

3To C, 20 September, 1787. 

4To. C, 3 March, 1788. 

5To C, 8 November, 1787. 

sfKnox to Wash., 25 May, 1788. 

7 Adams to Jay, 14 February, 1788, Works, VIII, 475. 



THE RECEPTION OF TEE CONSTITUTION 57 

pressed a wish that a commercial treaty existed between 
the United States and Great Britain. 1 

Most of our friends in England highly approved of the 
Constitution. 1 Dr. Price wrote in delight to Franklin 2 
and to Lee. 3 The separation of church and state was 
especially welcome. 2 Granville Sharp liked everything but 
the slavery article. Alexander Small worried because 
"your territory is too extensive for a popular government." 4 
Some of the ultra-radicals whom Joel Barlow met, thought 
liberty was insufficiently recognized. 5 The unfailing 
Macintosh wrote Washington proffering further advice, 
and remarking, "It is flattering to me, Sir, on comparing 
the paper which you were pleased to transmit with mine 
to perceive so striking a resemblance in their outlines and 
features." 6 

On the whole the English press received the written Con- 
stitution with respect, if for no other reason, "because it 
bore a great likeness to the unwritten Constitution of Eng- 
land. The Americans are desirous to preserve a repub- 
lican government, yet in some measure similar to our own," 
said the Bristol Journal. 1 But occasionally there was an 
adverse word: "The plan of the American government is 
want of firmness." 8 "No provision for the liberty of the 
press," says the Morning Chronicle? noting later that 
amendments were being proposed. 10 The Bath Chronicle 
was inclined to ridicule, and the Political Magazine thought 
that America would be "for a century, at least distracted 
with civil commotions. 11 It was a first essay and an 
experiment. 12 



lAdams to Jay, 14 February, 1788, Works, VIII, 475. 

22December, 1788, Franklin, Works, IX, 42. 

324 March, 1788 ; Life of Arthur Lee, II, 352. 

42 January, 1788 ; Franklin, Works, IX, 452. 

5Barlow, Life and Letters, 84. 

Woe. Hist, of the Con., Pt. I, 699. 717 November, 1788. 

^Bristol Journal, 2 November, 1787. 

916 November, 1787. 

1014 January, 1788. 

1113 November, 1788. 

1 a July, 1788. 



58 THE RECEPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION 

The belief that the experiment might not endure was also 
expressed by one on the ground in some of the "Observa- 
tions'' sent through Dorchester to Lord Sydney, appar- 
ently from the same hand that penned the memorandum 
about American hankerings after monarchy in the Spring 
of 1787. 1 ' He names "Colonel Hamilton" as one who 
brought forward a plan in the Convention "that had in 
view the establishment of a monarchy and the placing of 
a crown upon the head of a foreign Prince, which was 
overruled, although supported by some of the ablest mem- 
bers of the Convention." These members, he asserts, re- 
garded the Constitution "as an experiment paving the way 
for a more energetic one . . . and consider the present 
short lived appointment of the President as a poor object 
for ambition." 

"Amongst the number of objections to the new system 
raised by the advocates for a monarchy, the constant 
struggle for power which in the nature of things must take 
place between the general or national and State govern- 
ments are not the least important. . . . 

"Many wealthy individuals have taken a decided part in 
favor of the new plan from the hope that the domestic 
debt of the union may be funded and that the various paper 
securities, of which they are holders to a great amount, 
purchased for a trifle, may rise to their full value. . . . 

"Nothing can well exceed the disordered condition of 
their finances. . . ." 2 

Allaire announced a civil war within three years "at 
farthest" 3 as he told of the faction engendered over the 
adoption of the Constitution. English newspaper and 
magazine kept pace with the ratification of the instrument, 
detailing the party contests in each State, stressing the 
attitude of Khode Island and North Carolina; while the 
Consuls sent similar data to the Ministry. "The States 

lAnte, 46-49. 

214 October, 1788, C. O. Papers, Canada, Class 42, Vol LXI. 

35 October, 1787, F. O. Eecs., Amer. Ser. I, Vol. V. 



TEE RECEPTION OF TEE CONSTITUTION 59 

continue in great party heats/' wrote Temple, 1 "which 
leaves it a matter still of doubt whether the said Constitu- 
tion will ever take place to any purpose, if at all, in this 
distracted country." 

Three months later England received word that New 
Hampshire, the ninth State, had ratified the Constitution 
and that Congress was wrangling about the place of meet- 
ing for the new government. The long line of march of 
"The Grand Foederal Procession at Philadelphia'' in cele- 
bration of the formation of the more perfect union took 
columns of the Morning Post from August 28th- September 
11th, 1788, and was a space filler for five installments of 
the Gentleman's Magazine (August-December). Washing- 
ton, whose election as "Dictator for 4 years" was reported 
so early as November 30th, 1787 2 was hailed as head of the 
"rising Empire" 3 — perhaps, added the Monthly Review 
with a touch of the ebbing English spleen, "perhaps Dic- 
tator for life." 4 

13 April, 1788, F. O. Kecs., Amer. Ser. I, Vol. VI. 

zPub. Advertiser. 

3Lon. Chronicle, 22 April, 1789. 

4July, 1789. 



PART II 



AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION 



INTRODUCTORY. 

When President Washington nervously faced Congress 
and delivered his first inaugural address he included in 
that bundle of precepts this sentence of inspiration, "The 
preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny 
of the Republican model of government are justly con- 
sidered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experi- 
ment intrusted to the hands of the American people.'' 1 
How English opinion regarded this experiment, its suc- 
cess, its probable endurance, its utility as an example, how 
their views of American polity were changed after con- 
stitutional government was put in operation, to what ex- 
tent Englishmen thought liberty really was preserved in 
America, and what were their specific criticisms of our 
constitution, is the business of the remainder of these 
pages to point out. 

No longer must we quote croakings about anarchy and 

distress. The establishment of the Federal Government 

■» 

almost immediately created respect. "Public order and 
industrial enterprise hath been brought about in shorter 
time than was ever before known in any country/' wrote 
Temple five months after Washington's inauguration. 2 The 
press reported that "we have good grounds to think a few 
years will restore public credit and national reputation ;" 3 
"the trade and agriculture of the United States were never 
in such a flourishing condition;" 4 "no part of the world 
affords at this time a more pleasing prospect than the 

iState Papers (Wait), I, 11. 

2T. to C, 10 October, 1789, F. O. Kecs., Vol. VII. 

3Pw6. Advertiser, 8 October, 1789. 

*Pol. Magazine, March, 1790. 

63 



64 INTRODUCTORY 

United States of America." 1 Bond wrote to Philip Yorke : 
"Things have taken a very favorable tnrn in this govern- 
ment and the prospect brightens up all — much has been 
done though something is still left to be done." 2 Gouver- 
neur Morris, our agent in London, wrote to Jefferson, "the 
reputation of the United States rises fast." 3 Major Beck- 
with, the Cabinet's agent in New York, reported to Gren- 
ville a year later : 

"This country, my Lord, is now beginning to feel its own 
importance; the confederation of Vermont and Kentucky, 
the produce of the import and tonnage duties, the estab- 
lishment of a National Bank, the having carried an excise, 
the early prospect of a mint, the great increase in popu- 
lation, a coasting trade of magnitude hitherto unthought 
of, the amount of annual exports, and other favorable 
circumstances excite the ideas of an active people." 4 

Bond and Temple announce with astonishment the rise 
in public securities, "and they are still rising !" 5 In London 
itself there was speculation in the American funds. The 
Star ran advertisements of several thousand United States 
government securities in the market, 20,000 acres on the 
Ohio to be auctioned, and lots in the coming city of Wash- 
ington for sale. 6 English opinion in this period veers 
around from the attitude that America is virtually hope- 
less to a state of more balanced inquiry into the principles 
and characteristics of our form of government. 

For gauging the new opinion and getting at the criticism 
from 1789-1798, we have several testing media besides the 
newspapers, magazines, diplomatic correspondence, parlia- 
mentary debates, memoirs and travelers' tales upon which 
we have so largely depended until the present. We now 
get some analysis of the nature of the government by 

iThe Bee, 26 October, 1791. 

2Hardwicke Mss., British. Museum, 16 April, 1791. 
3Spark's Morris, II, 52. 
43 March, 1791, F. O. Eecs., Vol. XII. 

5T. to C, 6 January, 1790; B. to C, 5 January, 1791; F. O. Kecs., 
Vols. XI and XII. 

629 November, 4 December, 1792. 



INTRODUCTORY 65 

students of politics and some discussion in histories of the 
United States compiled by English hands, but chief of all, 
the American experiment enters into the field of contro- 
versial literature. It swells the flood of fugitive pamphlets 
which inundated the last decade of the eighteenth century 
and treated of everything from the ouilding of pig-styes 
to the structure of church and state. Writers range them- 
selves on one side or the other in the remarkable out- 
flowering of political disputation which marks this period, 
flying the standard of radical or conservative, as the case 
may be. The United States is an armory from which both 
sides frequently draw their weapons. 

There were four leading occasions in this pamphlet war- 
fare when this country came into constant reference: The 
controversy begotten by Burke's "Reflections on the French 
Revolution," which opened up the whole question of the 
right of revolt and of the people to govern themselves ; the 
scurrilous row started by Paine's "Rights of Man," in fact 
a part of the Burke controversy, but initiating so many 
separate discussions about written constitutions, govern- 
ment by compact, and the rest, that it deserves to stand 
by itself ; the war with France, which forced into the lime- 
light a comparison of republicanism in Europe and repub- 
licanism in America; the radical movement toward a re- 
formed parliamentary representation, abolition of test 
oaths, and a wider suffrage, which naturally pointed to the 
United States as a shining instance of a country that 
enjoyed these blessings, if not in full, at least to a greater 
extent than England, and seemingly without an immediate 
collapse of society. All these occasions really reduce 
themselves to the last — the battle of radicalism, which 
raised its head with John Wilkes in 1769 1 and fought the 
good fight on Toryism until Government put a stop to its 
overt activity with the treason trials of 1794-1796. 

It is interesting to segregate and compare the radical 
view of American institutions with the conservative 

iLecky, History of England in the Eighteenth Century, III, 174. 



66 INTRODUCTORY 

opinion. We shall find that America's chief effect on Eng- 
lish thought during this period was its influence on the 
radicals as an inspiration and an example, on the con- 
servatives as an incentive to a deep searching of their 
theories and to the discovering of new modes of defending a 
thesis to which the American experiment offered a chal- 
lenge. Priestley expressed the general radical praise : 

"The Americans ventured to do a great deal more than 
our ancestors at the revolution and set a glorious example 
to France and the whole world. 

"They formed a completely new government on the prin- 
ciples of equal liberty and the rights of men (as Dr. Price 
expressly and happily said) 'without NOBLES, without 
BISHOPS and without A KING,' m 

A challenge such as this, smug conservatism had to meet, 
and we shall later see that it found several ways of meeting 
it. 

^Extracts from Dr. Priestley's Works, 1792, 10. 



CHAPTER I. 

The Views of the Radicals. 

Viscount Morley, in his life of Burke written fifty years 
since, remarks that the publication of "Reflections on the 
French Revolution" forthwith divided England into two 
camps. 1 Walter Phelps Hall notes that there were thirty- 
eight replies. 2 But as the replies called forth rebuttals and 
counter rebuttals, and as one of them was composed by 
Paine, which in its turn aroused a host of pamphlets, it 
may be said that hundreds of publications were the con- 
sequence of Burke's gauge thrown down to the Radicals. 
His book is the Bible of the period's Conservatism, as in- 
deed its philosophy is the ground work for conservative 
thought ever since. 

There were rival camps before Burke. He merely 
brought them into greater prominence and increased the 
enrollment in each. The genesis of radicalism was due to 
the demands for parliamentary reform, which started their 
course twenty years before. Gross inequality in repre- 
sentation, long parliaments, too much interference of the 
Crown in elections, and over-limited suffrage were all made 
subjects of complaint. The American war, fought in part 
because of non-representation and Crown domination, gave 
the movement a great impetus. It extended itself into an 
appeal for religious toleration, a free press, free platform, 
free right of petition. Some of its more uncompromising 
adherents wanted the ballot, universal suffrage, abolition 

^Edmund Burke (E. M. L.), 1867, 162. 

^British Radicalism, 1791-97, W. P. Hall, 1912, 57. 

67 



68 TEE VIEWS OF TEE RADICALS 

of primogeniture, and ventured to suggest the uselessness 
of aristocrats to society — a proposition which gave no joy 
to Burke or to the Court. 

Obviously such an agitation would lead to an examina- 
tion of the fundamentals of the state and of the source 
of government. Did government spring from those below 
or was it handed down from above? Was it run in the 
interest of the governed or the governors? We find the 
radical movement going through this stage with Price 
and Priestley at the moment the French Revolution broke 
out. Their conclusion, as indeed the logic of their prin- 
ciples made inevitable, was that the people should rule. 
The Society for Commemorating the Revolution of 1688 
set forth their basic tenets at one of its annual meetings : 

I. That all civil and political authority is derived from 
the people. 

II. That the abuse of power justifies resistance. 

III. That the right of private judgment, liberty of 
conscience, trial by jury, freedom of the press and the free- 
dom of election are ever to be held sacred and inviolable. 

It was in a sermon before this Society that Price laid 
down the resultant three rights possessed by free men : 

I. To choose our own governors. 

II. To cashier them for misconduct. 

III. To frame a government for ourselves. 1 

These propositions, enunciated while the King of France 
was in the thrall of his people, aroused Burke's ire and 
brought his famous attack. The Radicals accepted the 
precepts and in consequence sympathized greatly with the 
happenings across the Channel. As in America at the 
time, there were two parties, Jacobins and Anti-Jacobins. 
The Court, at first a little pleased at the straits of their 
cousin in France, and then a little worried lest the habit 
of deposing Kings should spread, paid little heed to the 
movement until Louis lost his head. This was too much; 

iA Discourse on Love of Country, 1789. 



THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 69 

and concerted steps were begun to crush out the Jacobin 
tendency at home. 

Even now the Court might have disregarded the move- 
ment, had it not spread to the lower classes. Price, 
Priestley and Godwin, Wyvill, Richmond, Jebb, Cart- 
wright and Mackintosh might speak, write or preach 
about doctrinaire ideas, but they really reached only the 
directing class, which on the whole, the administration 
regarded as "safe." But when the movement of protest 
against the established order was taken up by the lecturer 
Thelwall, "the Tribune of the people," by Thomas Hardy, 
a shoemaker, who organized popular gatherings on the 
outskirts of London, the pamphleteer Paine, whose simple 
phrases were understanded of even the lowest, and by 
plebians like Joseph Cerrald, Margarot, Skirving, and 
"Citizen" Eaton, the administration thought it time to act. 

There was a rumor, based partly on circumstantial evi- 
dence, partly on tales circulated by the Ministry, that the 
Jacobins at home were secretly leagued with the repub- 
licans in France for the purpose of overturning English 
church, king and state. Especially prominent in this 
movement, it was asserted, were some of the secret societies. 
In this period radicalism had begotten four leading or- 
ganizations, two before the French Revolution — the Society 
for Constitutional Information, aimed to spread literature 
about parliamentary reform, the Society for Commemor- 
ating the Revolution of 1688, which discussed principles of 
government, and two after the Revolution — the Friends of 
the People, merely a liberal club which tried to keep the 
subject of reform before the public, but freed of French 
taint, and the London Corresponding Society, to which 
anyone might belong for a shilling. 

This last society was most suspected. It ramified through 
the Kingdom. There were branches in Edinburgh and in 
Belfast. They addressed the National Assembly in France 
and exchanged rhetorical felicitations with similar organi- 
zations in French towns, merely benevolent bombast about 



70 THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 

liberty and humanity, but enough for Government to seize 
upon and suspect as treason. 1 One toast at a dinner in 
the Crown and Anchor Tavern in 1794 was, "All that is 
good in every constitution, and may we never be super- 
stitious enough to reverence in any that which is good for 
nothing." 

The climax of the Societies' activities, which spread as 
far as they did because of existing political and economic 
oppression and because of inspiration from the example of 
France, and, as we shall see, America, was a British con- 
vention of delegates from about fifty local Societies that 
convened at Edinburgh in 1793, a rather distant imitation 
of the Convention in France. Dundas and the Scottish 
authorities dissolved the meeting and charged the leaders 
with sedition. One committee was alleged to have hatched 
this conspiracy: 

I. The capture of the Lord Chief Justice Clerk, and all 
Government officials at their homes. 

II. The firing of the excise house for the purpose of 
ambuscading the military. 

III. The capture of the castle while the soldiers were 
fighting the flames, or in the ambuscade. 

IV. The seizure of the bank with its contents. 

V. An order to be given to all farmers of the neighbor- 
hood to keep their food supply at the disposal of the rioters. 

VI. All gentlemen within three miles to be commanded 
not to leave their homes under penalty of death. 

VII. A petition to be sent to the King to end the 
French war or take the consequences. 2 

The leaders of the British Convention were exiled to 
Botany Bay for their pains. Systematic steps to repress 
the organizations in London and elsewhere were at once 
taken, and Hardy, Holcroft, Thelwall, Home Tooke, and 
Yorke summoned for trial, as other radicals like Winter- 
botham, Callender, Muir, Palmer and Eaton had been 

iThe Revolution Society did likewise. Its correspondence was pub- 
lished in 1794. estate Trials, XXIV, 38. 



THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 71 

before. The "Two Acts" of 1794, "The Seditious Meeting 
Bill," and "An Act for the Safety and Preservation of His 
Majesty's Person and Government Against Treasonable 
and Seditious Practices and Attempts," supplied the gov- 
ernment with instruments which hounded overt popular 
radicalism to death, for the duration of the French war 
at least. 1 

It is customary to state that all this sound and fury 
signified nothing, that the radical Societies were few and 
their membership insignificant in comparison with the 
population of easy-going, stand-pat citizens. Though this 
is doubtless true, the fact is the administration feared the 
movement might be more widespread than it really was. 
Known governmental antagonism led to secrecy on the 
part of radical societies and secrecy begot suspicion of 
potential magnitude; the safe plan was to stamp them 
out. In doing so it must not be forgotten also that the 
government was eliminating political foes. But Dundas was 
really alarmed by the agitation. 2 So were others of the 
ministry. There were rumors of a "pop-gun plot," accusa- 
tions that the radicals were sending a gift of shoes to the 
French army, were busy gathering up pikes in country 
barns whence they were to assail smug aristocracy. The 
bulwarks of the Tower were strengthened and the guard 
at the Bank reinforced. 3 When Pierre, in a revival of 
Venice Preserved, uttered the line, "Cursed be your senate, 
cursed be your constitution," it was noted with anxiety 
that the audience broke into wild applause, though the 
trials were then at their height. So intolerant did the 
government become of any radical expression, whether 
from genuine fear or ingenious policy, that Fox was 
stricken from the Privy Council list for toasting "The 

iFor radicals : Report of the Committee of Secrecy of the House of 
Commons, 1799 ; Proceedings in the Case of High Treason, 1794 ; G. S. 
Veitch, The Genesis of Parliamentary Reform, 1913, the fullest account; 
C. B. E. Kent, The English Radicals, 1899 ; W. P. Hall, British Radical- 
ism, 1791-97, 1912. 

2The Arniston Papers, G. W. T. Omond, 1887. 

3Stanhope's Pitt, II, 179. 



72 THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 

Majesty of the People," and the Duke of Norfolk deposed 
from the Lord Lieutenancy of West Riding, and the com- 
mand of a regiment, for a somewhat more incendiary 
speech at Fox's birthday party in 1798: 

"I shall only recall to your memory that not twenty 
years ago the illustrious George Washington had not more 
than two thousand men to rally round him when his 
country was attacked. America is now free. This day 
full two thousand men are assembled in this place : I leave 
to you to make the application." 1 

Norfolk's appeal to American example was a regular 
procedure with the Liberals of the day. In the correspond- 
ence between the Radical Societies and the French Clubs, 
the union of America, France and Great Britain in an 
alliance for the freedom of humanity is a continual theme. 
At the celebration of the French Revolution at Belfast in 
1792 three banners were borne in the street parade — those 
of America, France and Ireland. England was left out. 
Under the American flag was the motto "The Asylum of 
Liberty," and a portrait of Franklin with the inscription 
"Where Liberty is, there is my Country." A banquet toast 
ran "Lasting Freedom and Liberty to the United States 
of America." 2 Ireland and Scotland invoked America as 
a precedent which, if they were not to follow, proved Eng- 
land must make concessions in parliamentary representa- 
tion and in more ample self rule. 

At the trials the following passages approving America 
were read as evidence of seditious intent. They demonstrate 
that the American example was only second to France in 
the eyes of the radicals : 

"We ardently wish the triple alliance (not of crowns 
but) of the people of America, France, and Great Britain to 
give freedom to Europe and peace to the whole world." 

"The luster of the American Republic, like an effulgent 
morning, arose with increasing vigor, but still too distant 
to enlighten our hemisphere till the splendor of the French 

Ubid, III, 91. ^Belfast Politics, 1794. 



THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 73 

Revolution burst forth upon the Continent in the full 
fervor of a morning sun." 1 

Speaking in his own defence Joseph Gerrald said of 
universal suffrage, "fortunately for me, gentlemen, my 
experience enables me to give a flat contradiction to the 
position advanced. I myself resided during four years in 
a country where every man who paid taxes had a right to 
vote; I mean the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I was 
an eye witness of many elections which took place in 
Philadelphia, the capital of the state, an industrious and 
populous city, and can safely assert that no riot ever 
ensued. For in truth, gentlemen, the representative had 
no interest distinct from his constituents: the office which 
he undertook was rather a burden than a benefit, and as 
the government was too poor to purchase, and the people 
too virtuous to barter away, their liberties, even if the case 
had been otherwise, so the deputy, though he had every 
opportunity to serve, had no temptation to sell his con- 
stituents. What then has been found by experience to be 
wholesome for Americans can never prove hurtful or 
poisonous to Britons, the parent stock of whom Americans 
are descended." 2 

Thus, as we have said, America was regarded as an 
armory from which radicalism should draw its weapons. 
What precepts of the radical creed she was expected to 
demonstrate were itemized in an answer to Burke's Reflec- 
tions : "America may satisfy a future age on these points — 

"Whether a country whose extent is greater than Europe 
can remain united and free under a representative govern- 
ment? Whether it can have an efficient executive power, 
and a permanent constitution, without a King, without a 
Court, without Nobles, without an established Religion? 
And whether the cause of Christianity can be supported 
without the assistance of the Athanasian creed?" 3 

iThe Proceedings in the Cases of High Treason, 1794. 
2The Trial of Joseph Gerrald, 1794. 

%An Answer to the Bt. Hon. Ed. Burke's Beflections, by an Irish- 
man, 1791. 



74 THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 

In his reply to Burke, Mackintosh was hopeful that the 
American experiment would answer the question in the 
affirmative. He spoke of America's tranquility and free- 
dom, affluence and credit, and said: "The authors of her 
constitution have constructed a great permanent experi- 
mental answer to the sophistries and declamations of the 
detractors of liberty." 

Henry Yorke, who addressed "Thoughts on Civil Govern- 
ment" to the citizens of Sheffield, 1 was more emphatic : 

"If the few govern the many, the interests of the few 
will be alone pursued ; but if the many govern themselves, 
the few will be comprehended in it, and the interests of the 
whole will be constantly followed. The sooner therefore, 
the people claim their rights, the better will be their con- 
dition, and happier that of posterity. To this truth I am 
ready to allege the evidence of America which does flourish 
in wealth and peace without either Kings, Bishops or 
Nobles, and which is of course a proof that other countries 
can do the same. At all events the government of America 
is conducted on a cheaper scale; and I verily believe that 
the people of the country are happier without them. . . . 
They have left their government open to innovations, not 
inimical to Truth, Justice and Liberty. Already they have 
three times revised their constitution, and never were either 
Kingcraft or Priestcraft so much as mentioned by one of 
them. They have lived under the influence of both and they 
had fought and bled to relinquish them. It was not likely 
therefore that they should again harbor in their bosoms 
what they deemed snakes, and what they had magnanim- 
ously rejected as a pollution and abhorrence. The whole 
expense of their Federal Government, founded on the sys- 
tem of representation and extending over a country ten 
times as large as England is but £135,000 Sterling." 

In this quotation Yorke mentions five points which the 
radicals held America to prove — that government comes 
from the people, who should control at all times, that a 

11794. 



THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 75 

country flourishes with popular representation, that it can 
get on without a directing aristocracy, and that, thus, its 
people are happier and its government cheaper. Other 
important conclusions deduced by the radicals were that 
religious toleration and separation of church and state 
is desirable, a written constitution most praiseworthy, that 
rotation in office, the ballot and wide suffrage are political 
desiderata. They considered America a challenge to re- 
form, if not insurrection. Kadical opinion thought her 
most happy and prophesied a glorious future. The follow- 
ing tissue of quotations corroborates these assertions. 

Major Cartwright was the prolific radical writer who 
most of all urged American precedent to prove the ad- 
vantages and blessings of popular suffrage and adequate 
representation, of a written constitution and of a ballot. 
He glossed over the fact that suffrage was widely restricted 
and the ballot's use in those days greatly limited, just as 
he over-stressed the existence of a written constitution. 

Paine had initiated the discussion of written instruments 
when he defied the English to show him a copy of their 
constitution, and asserted that since no copy was in print, 
no constitution existed. He said that a written constitu- 
tion was as essential to politics as a grammar was to 
language. The idea was seized upon by radical pamph- 
leteers and publicists. Benjamin Heath Malkin, a young 
Oxford essayist, shows Paine's influence in this outburst. 
"The constitution of which the English were so enamored 
existed only in their own imagination. ... At what time 
was it framed? Was it ever completed? When was it 
ratified? ... It is clear that no period can be ascertained 
at which to fix the era of the constitution." 1 

In "An Appeal on the Subject of the English Constitu- 
tion" Cartwright said, "Here we have to lament, and a 
subject of most serious lamentation it is, that we have not 
a written constitution, to which all, King, Lords and people, 
ministers, military and judges, but above all, to which our 

iSome Essays Connected with Civilization, 1795, 124. 



76 THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 

representatives might at all times appeal. ... A benefit 
resulting from the possession of a written constitution is 
so obvious that I need scarcely remind my reader of it: 
no unconstitutional law of consequence can get upon the 
statute book, and if any unimportant one should creep in, 
it must soon be detected and expunged." 1 

Another benefit in Cartwright's eyes was the distinction 
between laws that were fundamental and those statutes 
which dealt with "old rags, kettles and frying pans." Still 
another was that it kept in mind the fact that government 
was a compact of the people who came together and de- 
termined what their form of rule should be in an instru- 
ment "visible and tangible . . . committed to print . . . 
something of which we are not possessed. I would to God 
we were!" 2 Cartwright added that a constitution should 
be taught like the Lord's Prayer. 

As our constitution was regarded as daily testimony to 
the fact that the American people were the source of 
government, so their participation in it by suffrage and 
adequate representation were the causes of its success. 
Said Cartwright: 

"Does any man in any country where reason is not in 
chains — does any man in America — does any man in 
France . . . conceive any other idea of political liberty 
than that it has no other cause than legislative represen- 
tation?" 3 

"Here let me ask every politician if any nation, in any 
age, ever experienced the blessings of good government in 
so eminent a degree as they have been experienced by 
Americans since their change?" inquired Cartwright agaiu 
in "The Constitutional Defence of England." 4 "Can any 
gentleman present point out in the whole annals of the 
human race another instance of an equal duration of such 
peace and felicity as America has already enjoyed under 

11796. 

^Letter to the Duke of Newcastle, 1792. 

*An Appeal on the Subject of the English Constitution, M.D., II. 

41796, 40. 



THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 77 

her present government?" Then, rebutting a contention of 
the Conservatives which we shall note in the next chapter : 

"But it is a practice, gentlemen, amongst the enemies 
of reform in this country, and their deluded supporters, 
to observe that the peace and happiness of America de- 
pends upon the wisdom and virtue of Washington, and not 
upon the purity of representation. The affectation of this 
belief is wickedness, the reality is weakness. The very 
same classes of men are continually lamenting that man 
is so selfish an animal, that the idea of governing a com- 
munity through the medium of an incorrupt body of repre- 
sentatives is completely visionary. Hence they are com- 
pelled to do away as well as they can with the magnificent 
fact of fifteen American states precisely so governed. And 
this very attempt though an artful but a very shallow 
compliment to the virtues of Washington, recoils with ten- 
fold force on themselves. The President of the United 
States was freely chosen by the representatives of the 
people. Here then we see the happy effects of a generous 
representation. It does speak the will of the people : it does 
give to the highest virtue the highest place ; it does, as the 
sparks fly upward, naturally provide the happiness and 
glory of the nation." In the "Commonwealth in Danger" 1 
he repeats his panegyric of American representation as 
the source of American happiness and praises the ballot, 
"generally if not universally adopted in the election of 
representatives." 

Cartwright referred to the American government also 
for the thesis that society might get on admirably without 
nobles, bishops or kings. But Thomas Cooper, advocate of 
rotation in office, a radical who had travelled in America, 
invested in lands on the Susquehanna, and returned to 
write a glowing account of the new land, in fact an em- 
migration puff, 2 set the example forth incisively : 

"Privileged orders are useless — a position that may now 

11795. 

2Some Information Concerning America, 1794. 



78 THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 

be advanced upon the best of all foundations; the most 
flourishing nation on the face of the globe, America, having 
tried the experiment of doing without them on a very ex- 
tensive scale for near twenty years and with success fully 
equal to the most sanguine expectations of her best wish- 
ers. . . . The Constitution of the American states suggest 
to me some observations on the general theory of political 
societies which I think important, that is that all govern- 
ment is carried on in the interest of the governors, not as 
in America, the many governing themeselves through a 
few. . . . 

"This system of representative government with ex- 
clusion by periodical rotation of the public officers (which 
if not necessary, seems at least expedient) has not been 
well understood until of late years; and America is the 
only country which affords tolerably fair examples from 
which other nations of the globe may judge of its effects. 
The simplicity, the tranquility, and the cheapness of this 
system are unquestionably manifest in that quarter of the 
globe." 1 

Besides the freedom of the suffrage and representation, 
other leading radical tenets were religious toleration and 
separation of church and state, precepts which we found in 
Price's Observations. 2 In the myth making days between 
1783-90 there were reports in England that the United 
States had adopted an official church. The Public Ad- 
vertiser reported, "The Americans have adopted Presby- 
terianism as the established religion, but with toleration to 
all others." 3 The Morning Post varied the announcement : 
"The Americans have found it necessary since their separa- 
tion from this country to adopt Episcopacy," 4 a rumor 
doubtless originating from the Kev. Samuel Seabury's trip 
to England at this time. Granville Sharp worked cease- 
lessly to introduce Episcopacy into the country and fre- 

1A Reply to Mr. BurTce's Invective, T. Cooper, 1792. 

zAnte, 28. 

312 February, 1783. 

41 January, 1785. 



THE VIEW8 OF THE RADICALS 79 

quently corresponded with Franklin on the subject. 1 When 
an edition of the Book of Common Prayer, revised for 
American use, was issued by Debrett in 1789, the reviewers 
made merry over the alterations of services necessitated 
by the absence of monarchy, and twitted the compilers 
about the Thanksgiving for the Fourth day of July which 
invoked a blessing on Congress for laying "the perpetual 
foundation of peace, liberty and safety." 2 They also dwelt 
on the freedom of religion and its independence of the 
government. 

"In most of the states religion stands entirely on the 
foundation of its truth and the power of God. That un- 
natural alliance between church and state which takes place 
in these parts of the world — that power in magistrates of 
appointing a form of religion for the community — that 
invasion of the rights of citizens by excluding some Chris- 
tians from places of trust . . . being quite unknown. This 
is an effect of the Kevolution and is a compensation for all 
the blood and treasure lavished in that long and dreadful 
conflict," said Thomas Wright in a sermon preached on the 
decease of Eichard Price. 

The occasions when America's attitude toward religion 
came in for most discussion in England were the recurring 
parliamentary debates over the test oaths and disabilities 
of Catholics. We shall note these discussions in outlining 
the views of the administration. There were similar debates 
in the Irish Parliament, and Grattan and Wolfe Tone 
appealed to American precedent and practice to disprove 
the contention that there would be strict party divisions 
on religious lines. Grattan queried "In other countries — 
America — do Catholic and Protestant or Protestant and 
Catholic there act as religious conbinations under the dis- 
tinct banner of priest or parson, or as a solid combined 
mass of people? Is not infant America competent to 
instruct our age on this subject and give us simple but 

iMemoirs of Granville Sharp, 1828. 
2Eur. Mag., July, 1789. 



80 THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 

august and exalted instruction in morality, policy and 
wisdom?" 1 

Wolfe Tone hit the same analogy : "But I will look for 
better things. The example of America, of Poland and of 
France. ... In America the Catholic and Protestant sit 
equally in Congress without any contention arising, other 
than who shall serve his country best. So may it be with 
Ireland !" 2 

American toleration led him to this glowing account 
which represents, with oratorical flourish, what was 
thought in Ireland of the freedom over the ocean. 

"Look I beseech you to America ! See the improvement 
in her condition since she so nobly asserted her independ- 
ence on a provocation which, set beside your grievances, is 
not even worthy to be named. Before the struggle she, 
too, was flourishing far beyond what you have ever ex- 
perienced: England, too, was then infinitely more formid- 
able in every point of view than at this hour; but neither 
the fear of risking the enjoyments she possessed, or the 
terrors of the power of her oppressors prevented America 
from putting all to the hazard when her liberty was at 
stake. She humbled her tyrants at her feet, and see how 
she has been rewarded! Contemplate the situation of 
America before her independence and see whether every 
motive which actuated her in the contest does not apply to 
you with ten-fold force — compare her laws, compare her 
government with yours, if I must call that a government 
which is indeed a subversion of all great principles, and 
a total destruction of the ends for which men submit to be 
controlled, and see whether it is not worth the struggle 
to place yourselves in a situation equally happy as hers 
for yourselves and your friends, and ten times more formid- 
able for your enemies." 3 

It may be said that the general radical opinion of 

^Sketch of the Debates on the Roman Catholic Bill, 1792, 112. 
"-An Argument on Behalf of the Catholics, T. W. Tone, 1792, 16. 
%An Address to the People of Ireland, 1796, 26. 



TEE VIEWS OF TEE RADICALS 81 

America, the country where their preachings were prac- 
tices, concluded that her people were extremely happy 
and her government extremely cheap, 1 this latter a favorite 
point with the economic radicals of whom a few flourished 
at this time. 2 Some notes of complaint came from ultra- 
radicals. Thelwall asserted that there was too much vener- 
ation for property and too much religion. His evidence 
of the grasp of religion was the alleged Connecticut Blue 
Law. Said he, "I think there is too much religion in that 
country when a man taking a ride on a Sunday afternoon 
is to have a hue and cry raised to bring him back, and 
when a husband can be made to do penance for saluting 
his wife on the street after seven years absence." 3 

One pamphleteer, denouncing aristocracies everywhere, 
regrets that "even America seems falling into the same 
track, she is even now permitting aristocracy to creep in 
under the name Trade. The plain soldier of liberty is lost 
amidst the unmeaning titles of — Esquire, Honorable, and 
Excellency, bestowed in the same manner as certain other 
nicknames in this country. . . . Their senate is only a 
beggarly imitation of the English House of Lords." 4 

Wilberforce, Sharp and Day resented the specific recog- 
nition of slavery in our constitution. "Such is the incon- 
sistency of mankind ! These are the men whose clamorings 
for liberty and independence are heard across the Atlantic 
Ocean," wrote the last. 5 A traveller said that slavery made 
him think he was in a "land of hellish tyranny instead of 
land of liberty." 6 

Yet despite these peccadillos America was a nation with 
a great future and a remarkable present. The Earl of 
Buchan let his "eye glide over the mazy volume of his- 

iJames Green, A Treatise intituled Political Tracts, 1798 ; T. Cooper, 
Some Information Concerning America; John Thelwall, The Tribune, 
Vol. III. 

2Hall, Op. Cit., Pt. I, Chap. VI. 

3The Natural and Constitutional Bights of Britons, 1795, 82. 

*The Patriot's Pocket Companion for 1797, 6. 

*The Dying Negro, 1793. 

6Loofc Before You Leap, 1794. 



82 THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 

tory" where there was not a "Hesiod, an Hippocrates, a 
Zeuxis, that can so dazzle a good man as to prevent his 
discovery that in the midst of their splendid productions 
there were many more happy individuals in the states of 
North America." 1 Gerrald praised America in "A Conven- 
tion the Only Means of Saving Us from Kuin." 2 Tracts 
written to encourage emigration spoke of it as a heaven 
on earth. 3 Capel Lofft, crossing swords with Burke, con- 
tended that chivalry far from being lost, found its true 
haven with us. "I understand there is more of the spirit 
in America than in any part of the globe," he wrote. 4 Sir 
Philip Francis thought the United States "the most 
flourishing country in the world." 5 The Political Magazine 
lamented that "man should look abroad for that happiness 
which he should attain at home." 6 

It was the idea of American felicity which attracted the 
little group of literary men, colored with youthful radical- 
ism, who thought up the scheme of pantistocracy. In the 
literature of this era America gets meagre attention. 
Blake's rhapsody is a grotesque. 7 Burns was warmed by 
the American enterprise more than any other bard. He 
hailed in verse the example of Hancock and Franklin and 
wrote an ode for Washington's birthday. 8 Bade to drink 
a toast to Pitt, he offered the health "of a better man, 
George Washington." Wordsworth thought the United 
States, first of all nations, had seen and followed man- 
kind's true interest. 9 Beckford indorsed American free- 
dom. 10 . Robert Bage thought our government the best on 
earth. 11 But young Southey and Coleridge were the liter- 



iThe Bee, VIII, 323. 

21793, 71, seq. 

^Emigration to America, 1798. 

^Remarks on the Letter of the Rt. Hon. Ed Burke, 1791, 38. 

^Memoirs, II, 296. 

6 September, 1794. 

i America — A Prophesy, 1793. 

»Works (Henley, 1896), II, 154 and 171. 

*Prose Works (Knight, 1896), I, 12. 
WLife and Letters, 1910, To Wadsworth, 7 September, 1798. 
UHermsprong, 1796, II, 164. 



THE VIEWS OF THE RADICALS 83 

ary pantistocrats who talked of founding a communist 
colony on the banks of the Susquehanna where Thomas 
Cooper had his land. They agreed with Thomas Poole who 
wrote his friend Porkis : 

"America seems the only asylum of peace and liberty — 
the only place where the dearest feelings of man are are 
not insulted; in short the only spot where a man the least 
humane and philosophical can live happily." 1 

They would have agreed also, as would most liberal 
thinkers of the day, with Grattan's aureate imagery, the 
zenith of anti-administration laudation of the United 
States : 

"Bankrupt America; that America with which in 1785, 
you said you would not trade. Where is she now? See 
her wrapped in her western car of steady breeze, flying 
Taster far than the prophet's flame, which falls short of 
her progress, and, traversing, parallels and circles until 
she spreads herself a vast morning glory in the containing 
ether — a power of the deep." 2 

iThomas Poole and His Friends, 1888, I, 77. 
^Speeches of the Rt. Hon. Henry Grattan, 1822, II, 200. 



CHAPTER II. 

The Opinion of the Conservatives. 

"Fear God, and the King, and meddle not with those 
that excite men to change," was a text from Proverbs, 
xxiv, which found a frequent place in the texts of pulpit 
discourses explaining the conservative creed, attacking 
the teachings of the radicals, and the examples of France 
and America. In a sense it may be held that conserva- 
tism always is a religion, calling upon faith, whereas rad- 
icalism, the movement of protest against the fixed order, 
calls upon reason and intellectual inquiry, under the spur 
of depressing economic, social, or political conditions. 
Conservatism in the eighteenth century was essentially a 
religion. It was not without fitness that the clergy should 
enter the lists by observing that "We hear nothing in the 
Scriptures about Republics." 1 And that all establishment 
of Republics are "Treason Against Heaven." 2 John 
Whitaker, B.D., published "The Real Origin of Govern- 
ment" and expressed the classic religious view: 

"Then rose Republics. The first that made its appear- 
ance in the world was at Athens. The keen genius of At- 
tica, wanting to try an experiment in the universal polity 
of man, to substitute a creature of its own reason for the 
fabrication of God's wisdom, and to violate the primo- 
genial law of nature in favor of a fanastical theory, took 
advantage of the death of a self-devoted monarch by ven- 
turing upon the bold innovation of creating a Republic." 3 

1A True Englishman's New Year's Gift to His Country, 1792. 
2A Fast Sermon, E. Burrows, 1791. 
31795, 28. 

85 



86 THE OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 

Confronted with the existence of a flourishing republic 
in America, conservatism, religious and lay, was hard 
put. Mere theoretic declamation would not do. Their 
adversaries were pressing the example of a particular in- 
stance to undermine the truth of a general statement. Be- 
fore this onset conservatism had to trim to a new tack. 
Their business was to belittle the experiment in some 
plausible way. 

Who were the conservatives of the era? As customarily, 
they were the administration, the office holders, the aris- 
tocratic class, the multitudinous clergy, and the comfort- 
able property owners. They were in. The others were 
out. They were the directing group, and what, in Bishop 
Horsley's phrase, did other people have to do with govern- 
ment except to obey it? Then there were a few political 
thinkers like Burke — the greatest champion of the cause, 
whose noble panegyric of aristocracy 1 makes us thrill even 
to this day — who had worked out a philosophy of conserva- 
tism on what they considered an experimental basis. Be- 
sides, as a foil to the radical societies, there were two of 
opposite complexion, "The Association at the Crown and 
Anchor" and "The Association at St. Alban's Tavern." 

In dealing with America and countering the contention 
that the precedent of the United States argued that con- 
tinental countries, indeed Great Britain itself, might and 
should follow some of America's reforms, conservative 
thought came under eight main heads. As radicalism's 
picture had been tinted high, conservatism's portrait was 
shadowed low. 

I. They took issue on the facts : America's institutions 
were not framed by the people; there was not a liberal 
suffrage; there was not a popular government; nobility 
and a state church were not eliminated from choice. 

II. They asserted that the American enterprise was 
already a failure, and that Kepublicanism had run mad. 

^Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs (Works), 12 Vols., 1884, 
IV, 174. 



THE OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 87 

III. They appealed again to the classic political phil- 
osophy to denounce republics and democracy. 

IV. They said the good features really in vogue in 
America were due solely to the British Constitution and 
British example which, while the Americans had imitated, 
the radicals were trying to defame. 

V. They distinguished between conditions in America 
which made such institutions possible and conditions in 
Europe which made them highly dangerous. 

VI. They dwelt on the circumstances that so far 
America was only an experiment — too short for drawing 
conclusions. 

VII. They prophesied that she would yet break up or 
revert to monarchy. 

VIII. They claimed that her seeming success should 
be accredited to one remarkable character, Washington. 
With his death the end would arrive. 

First, the point that radicals did not state American 
political conditions candidly, and that in fact the system 
was already a failure. It was asserted that the constitu- 
tion had not been formed by the people and that the beati- 
tude of a written constitution was a myth : "At the era of 
American independence, when a frame of government was 
to be established in the thirteen states, did each individual 
in his own personal and sovereign right enter into a com- 
pact with each other to produce that government? No. 
Their different Assemblies, Congress and Senate, were so 
far from being the choice of every individual that but a 
twentieth part of the people were electors." 1 

J. Bowles seconded this view in his "Thoughts on the 
Origin and Foundation of Political Constitutions." 2 "In 
the year 1787 a new constitution was framed — not by the 
people but by the Convention, shut up for that purpose in 
CLOSE DIVAN. And in that constitution was recog- 
nized in a striking manner the necessity of reverting as 
far as circumstances would allow to the principles of their 



il, Hunt, The Rights of Englishmen, N. D. 
21795. 



88 THE OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 

ancient system, by assimilating thereto a new form of 
government." 

Further, the constitution which was adopted was "a 
baseless fabric/' according to Anthony Stokes. 1 "It has 
no fundamental and unalterable principle of liberty; but 
everything may be afloat whenever a convention is called." 
One of Paine's adversaries asked : "What do the constitu- 
tions of America and France derive from the visible form 
of their publication , more than that the fundamental 
principle of our government is contained in our common 
and statute laws; they are the rule and guidance of the 
executive, judiciary and legislative powers; and the con- 
stitutions of France and America are formed chiefly on 
the existing laws of this country." 2 

Another very truly said, while poking fun at the "Polit- 
ical Bible which must be in every pocket," that Paine, by 
his own principles, must admit that a written constitu- 
tion is nothing, if people can change it at will." 3 

As for the boasted choice of a government without a 
nobility, a state religion, and monarchy, that was easily 
explained away. It was necessity, not choice. Where 
could they get a nobility when there were no nobles? As 
the conservatives put it: 

"America during its connection with England, was the 
sink into which Great Britain poured all its filth. The 
convicts who were not immediately executed were trans- 
ported into that country ; and the fair race of patriots and 
saints may be generally traced to transported thieves. . . . 
The policy of a nobility hath prevailed all over the world, 
and probably will prevail, with the exception of countries 
so circumstanced as America, where the people must for- 
get their ancestors. The future colony of Botany Bay 
will follow their example; they will have no escutcheons 
and armorial bearings — they will be ^Republicans." 4 

^Desultory Observations on Great Britain, 1793. 
^Constitutional Letters in Answer to Paine, Anon., 1792. 
3W. Lewelyn, An Appeal to Men Against Paine's Rights of Man, 
N. D., 92. 

4A Defense of the Constitution of England, 1791, Anon., 16. 



TEE OPINION OF TEE CONSERVATIVES 89 

Answering the gratulation about the absence of re- 
ligious tests and an official church, Stokes sneers : "Their 
new constitution in 1787 ordains that no religious tests 
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office under 
the United States; so that at present a Mahometan or 
even a Pagan, may be President, Vice-President or a mem- 
ber of Congress." 1 

John Brand explains the absence of official religion 
thus: "In America there would have been an established 
religion if the Quakers had not been the leading sect ; and 
if in framing the Federal Union it had been practicable 
to set one sect above the other without danger." 2 

Similarly there was nothing sacred about the supposed 
free choice of Kepublicanism : "The great leaders of affairs 
of America who had to deal with a mixed race of people, 
dispersed over a vast tract of country, were well aware 
that they could only engage them in their projects by the 
number of allurements they could hold out. For this pur- 
pose they proposed a system of government that afforded 
a prospect of consequence to a vast number of the people — 
popularity was the great object of every measure that was 
started, and the necessity of flattering the multitude im- 
posed the leading features of their constitution." 3 

That Eepublicanism was really adopted as a second best 
was evident from the fact that it was really not permitted 
to exist. There was the shadow but not the substance. "Is 
America then free? I deny it. If General Washington 
was chosen governor by a certain number of men, or by 
their representatives, he was only chosen by such electors 
as were qualified by the laws of that country to give their 
vote on the day of election." 4 

The limited suffrage was made much of by all conserva- 
tives, one of whose chief tenets taught that property was 
the source of the vote and that for property government 

Wp. Git., 45. 

^Defense of the Constitution, 1796. 

*An Answer to the Second Part of the Rights of Mem, Anon., 1792. 

*A Letter to a Friend in the Country, Anon., 1792. 



90 THE OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 

itself existed. America, instead of being a precedent for 
the radicals should be a precedent for them. Arthur 
Young, comparing America and France, gave this reason 
for the distinction between them: 

"In France the populace are electors — The very reverse 
is the case in America, there is not a single state in which 
voters must not have a qualification of property. These 
two great experiments ought to pour conviction in every 
mind that order and property can never be safe if the right 
of election is personal instead of being attached to prop- 
erty." 1 

Robert Thomas in "The Cause of Truth," a conservative 
volley of 437 pages intended to annihilate the whole repub- 
lican doctrine, emphasized the suffrage qualifications of 
each state, 2 and said that not alone were there many 
limitations but that they were going to be increased. "If 
the qualifications for being a voter be lower in America 
than in Britain, it is because the people are more on a 
level but . . . the facility of acquiring the right of suffrage 
is already found to be attended with mischievous conse- 
quence. The Americans therefore, it is said, intend to 
remedy these evils by raising the qualifications for being 
a freeman and a voter." 3 Besides the contention that the 
American laboratory had not freely or really tested the 
devices radicalism advocated, there was an occasional 
statement that the United States was already a failure. 
"It has long been known that a great part of the inhab- 
itants of the United States are discontented with their 
present constitution," said a member of parliament in 
1794. 4 Her congress had to be "bribed — from the earnings 
of the indigent poor." 5 The presidency was a tottering 
institution handled by William Lewelyn after the fashion 
of Paine when he derided hereditary monarchy: 

1-Travels in France, Bohn, 1900, 338. 

2Taking them from Morse's American Geography. 

3p. 318. 

^Considerations on False and Real Alarms, N. MacLeod, 1794. 

5Pol. Review, 3 July, 1792. 



THE OP IN ION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 91 

"He is a little short lived king. His birth and his reign 
begin the same moment. He reigns three (sic) years, then 
dies always by agreement. . . . Before he is out of the 
cradle he expires. . . . Eaising plebians to the summit 
of national power and dignity by the election of a 
day and then pulling them down and levelling them with 
the lowest are transitions too sudden and rapid to be good. 
The government is always in its own way, ever disturbing 
and interrupting its own business, changing and stopping 
without end. ... I call upon divines, lawyers, physicians, 
surgeons, and all the faculty and ask them one by one 
whether any man, raised by election in one day to their 
situations, could manage their subjects unprepared by an 
education." 1 

America was reported run mad with republicanism. 
George Walker's "Vagabond," the novel, satirized the 
alleged situation. His hero, visiting Philadelphia, finds 
that the servants shout, "I am a free born American. Who 
are you — some lousy, beggarly emigre?" The inhabitants 
declare that they do not mind yellow fever, "since we have 
got our independence." 2 Anti-emigration pamphlets, of 
which this period has a number aimed to keep British 
youths at home, remark that when an immigrant appears in 
America with a good horse, "there is a sudden outflowering 
of the rights of man. 3 Though Wimborne, Landsdowne's 
son, had made the journey, Pinkerton the historian, 
solemnly advised the Earl of Buchan against visiting 
America lest "in their present political insanity ... a 
nobleman might be exposed to incivility." 4 

Part of the conservative attack on American example 
was based on the classic view of the evils of republican 
democracy a priori. We find it set forth in Kobert 
Thomas's "Cause of Truth," 5 in K. ' Bisset's "Sketch of 
Democracy" 6 and John Beeves's "Thoughts on English 
Government" 7 It reappears in the pamphlet literature. 

lAn Appeal, 24. 21799, 162. 3Stoke's Desultory Observations. 

430 July, 1794, Lit. Corresp. 51797. 61796. 71795 



92 THE OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 

Republics and Democracies were bad per se, and that was 
all there was about it. If America had not blown up yet, 
lit was merely preparing to make a fine explosion when it 
did. Extravagance, insurrection, corruption, immorality, 
irreligion, violation of private property, cabal, ingratitude, 
fickleness, the negation of liberty, were some of the ad- 
juncts of all democratic or republican states. 1 

"There does not appear to be more than four descriptions 
of society in the known world capable of admitting a form 
of government having the least trait of being republican — 
these are a Tribe of Indians, an horde of Hottentots, a 
band of Arabs and a nest of Pirates," was one expression 
of classicism. 2 

This bit of political wisdom comes from a pamphleteer 
who was attacking Paine. It is in the denunciation of his 
"Rights of Man" that we most frequently find another 
corrective rebuttal to the precedents of America — that all 
her good features are copied upon the English model. 
Indeed the constitution is itself a steal. A chaplain in the 
navy, who quotes the Old Testament to prove that "Paine, 
Franklin, and other Republicans will meet in Hell," re- 
marks: "At the very instant the laws of England are 
transcribing, and her constitution being adopted as a 
model by Poland, France and America, Paine, as if he 
were writing to lunatics, has brass of face enough to 
assure us that we have never had a constitution." 3 

Another clergyman says, "The United States got their 
constitutions from us ... so that whether your constitu- 
tion be good or bad you ought at least to thank us for it." 4 

The likeness between the two constitutions was observed 
by all parties. The radicals accentuated the differences, 
the conservatives the similarities. Arthur Young said in 
his "Travels in France" 5 that there was not "now in the 
world a constitution so near the British as that of the 

iReeves, Bisset, Thomas, J. Bowles; Dialogues on the Bights of 
Britons, 1792. 

^Rights of a Free People, 1792. ^Letters to a Friend, 1791. 

4W. Jepson, Letters to Thomas Payne, N". D. 5p. 168. 



THE OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 93 

United States." Somerville expressed the conservative 
couclusion thns: 

"We have heard nmch of the happy condition of the 
American colonies since their separation from the mother 
country, and of the excellence of their government as the 
source of their happy condition. . . . Yet I cannot see 
ground for inferring from it the inferiority of our own 
political condition, or for wishing to change it. Were not 
the seeds of American prosperity planted under the 
auspices, and has it not been fostered by the parental 
hand of the British constitution? — Say everything you can 
of the prosperity in America, all will redound to the honor 
of Britain." 1 

When pressed on the difference between the British con- 
stitution and the American — and asked why what was good 
for the United States was not good for Europe, the conserv- 
atives replied by the judicial device of distinguishing cases. 
The altered circumstances which conservatives advanced 
as permitting the American endeavor to endure were: 
"Most of the people are proprietors. . . . They have more 
^and than they need. . . . Few taxes, freedom from the 
luxury of Europe." 2 Society was "less advanced. . . . 
There were no great cities in the country." 3 "Manufacture 
and commerce do not yet exist to beget inequalities in 
property." 4 The "newness and the temporary unity be- 
gotten by the struggle for independence. The distances 
and small population. . . . The present absence of am- 
bitious men. . . . The fact that people are too busy getting 
subsistence to think of insurrection," were some of the 
features E. Thomas stressed as demonstrating the absurdity 
of making America an analogy. 5 

Arthur Young took the same direction, adding to his 
argument that America was only an experiment: "The 

^Observations on the Constitution . . . of Britain, 1793, 48. 

^Inevitable Consequences of Reform, W. Playfair, 1792. 

3The Importance of Preserving the System of Civil Government, 1793. 

4D. M. Peacock, Op. Cit.. 

5The Cause of Truth, 1797. 



94 THE OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 

Jacobins boast the government of America too soon to have 
experiment for their support, all countries fully settled 
must have a numerous arTd indigent poor. America, with 
immense deserts of fertile land at command, has no indigent 
poor to govern. ... But the time will come when she is 
no longer free from its pressure. ... It will then be 
found whether her system is so perfect as some pretend. If 
the mass of her people are in truth paramount they will 
pass laws for their own relief, and how is that to be 
effected without attacking proprietors. . . ? To suppose 
that a mob will possess the sovereign authority in act, as 
well as in right, and remain hungry is a farce." 1 

In the "Travels in France" Young wrote: "Much has 
been said in favor of the American government and I be- 
lieve with fair justice, yet . . . the exports of the United 
States now amount to twenty millions of dollars. When 
they amount to five hundred millions, when great wealth, 
vast cities and immense private fortunes are formed . . . 
will the government then be as faultless as it appears at 
present? . . . We have no convictions, no proof, it is in 
the womb of time— THE EXPERIMENT IS NOT 
MADE." 2 

In the pamphlet literature the unanswerable point of 
brief experiment is repeatedly advanced. Somerville said 
"It would take one hundred years to decide. . . . Who 
can say that it will outlive its century, that great test of 
all sublunary things?" 3 The only available retort of the 
radical was to twit the conservatives for inconsistency in 
concluding from the short experiment in France that re- 
publicanism was akin to anarchy, while denying that the 
experiment of America was long enough to make deduc- 
tions. "Eighteen years is no experiment in America, six 
months is a complete experiment in France." 4 

Hence, if the experiment were too short to prove any- 



iThe Example of France a Warning to Great Britain, 1794, 61. 

2p. 344. 

Wp. Cit., 55. 

*Peace and Reform, Daniel Stuart, 1794. 



THE OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 95 

thing the United States might get monarchy after all ; and 
it would doubtless break up. The former had been foreboded 
since the adoption of the constitution, so far back at 1789. 1 
In the "Argus," for 1789, Sampson Perry says that it is 
"probable that the American republic will finally resolve 
itself into the best of all possible governments — a limited 
monarchy.' 72 "It is impossible so great a country can 
always continue one empire,' 7 said another writer. "Dis- 
putes will arise from a variety of causes — ambition, lust 
of dominion and competition of interests. In such conflicts 
it is difficult to conjecture under what form of government 
they may at length be settled." 3 Charlemont, the Irishman, 
who admired America, nevertheless took the same view: 
"The American constitution, which is much to be pre- 
ferred, can only last until that immense region, increasing 
in wealth and population shall be divided into various 
states, republics and kingdoms, while the British oak. . . 
will . . . remain for ages a lasting monument of its su- 
preme strength." 4 

The precise moment set by the conservative debaters 
for the disruption of the American state and society was 
the day of Washington's death, or of his descent from his 
high office. An election would introduce factious chaos. 
The great man's end would coincide with America's anihil- 
ation. 

'When Hector falls, then Ilion is no more!" 

Washington's career was a marvel to English radical and 
conservative alike. Running counter to history as a vic- 
torious general, he had put the crown by. Selfishness was 
a tertiary part of his makeup. The welfare of the United 
States was his prime object, and, as we read the letters 
and remaining records of the "fathers," despite the auster- 
ity of Washington's personality showing through the 

iLon. Chronicle, 10 December; Pub. Advertiser, 25 May. 

2p. 259. 

3Hunt, Rights of Englishmen, 1792, 36. 

^Charlemont Mss., Hist. Mss. Comm., 12th Ept., I, 183. 



96 THE OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 

written documents, it is he who of all commands most 
respect, not for any mental agility like Hamilton, or acute 
sense of popular favor like Jefferson, but for deep whole- 
someness, sincerity and elevation of character. 

In England Washington was an object of interest from 
the first. We have noticed Burke's praise of him in Ameri- 
ca's darkest days. 1 A newspaper paragraph on Washing- 
ton was sure to be read. His quiet resignation and return 
to Virginia elicited wide comment. His occasional public 
appearances were always reported. Failing facts, the 
hacks supplied canards. He was said to be emigrating 
from America for the Continent. He was busy writing a 
history of the war. An Irish newspaper, wiiose account 
was copied in London 2 announced that "a discovery has 
been made which will astonish the whole world — The great 
and excellent General Washington is actually discovered 
to be of the female sex." In 1794 the Sun ran a rumor that 
he had been assassinated by a Jacobin. 3 

It was the eminent character of the man which held the 
union together, in the conservative contention, and hence 
invalidated the whole American project as one for imita- 
tion. Peacock, in his "Considerations on the Structure of 
the House of Commons" expressed the prevalent view : "It 
may w^ell be doubted whether that power has not main- 
tained itself hitherto, rather by the personal abilities and 
popularity of the individual in whose hands it has been 
placed, than by its own proper strength and vigor. At 
least the necessity that there seems to have been of con- 
tinuing Washington in the presidentship, so long beyond 
the term appointed by the constitution, strongly counte- 
nances such an opinion." 

In one of the anti-Paine pamphlets we get an expression 
of the reiterated view of what will likely happen to the 
United States at his death: "Who can say but that the 
election of a successor to Washington may not shake this 
newly raised empire to its very foundation; and that 

lAnte. 39. 2WMte. Ev. Post, 31 May, 1783 34 May. 



THE OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 97 

country, as well as others, be happy to submit to an heredit- 
ary magistrate restrained by law rather than to an equal 
elevated perhaps by the chance of the moment, who in his 
exalted situation must ever retain the prejudices of the 
private citizen.'' 1 

It will be hard to overemphasize the universality of the 
view that the passing of Washington would be the signal 
for the coming of ruin. His acceptance of a second election, 
regarded ominously by some radicals, was by others in- 
terpreted to mean that he did not dare try the experiment 
of an open election. His Farewell Address, widely pub- 
lished and praised, and his declination to accept a third 
term was asserted to be clear evidence that he felt he had 
best retire from the scene and try to superintend at least 
one tranquil election before his death. 2 

The selection of Adams was watched with care. 3 Though 
travelers like Wansey 4 and Cooper 5 had reported the quiet- 
ness of American elections, and Gerrald had testified to 
witnessing their peaceful procedure, 6 England was doubt- 
ful. In Holland the British stories about probable trouble 
disturbed the American funds. 7 Liston, lately sent out 
English minister to succeed Hammond, called the Minis- 
try's attention to the fact that "this is the first time in 
the history of the government that the election is a con- 
tested one." 8 He considered the "election so important for 
the future system of politics in the United States that I 
have thought it worth while to detain the Princess of 
Wales packet for some days that I might have it in my 
power to inform your Lordship of the event." 8 

From the standpoint of this monograph the orderly 
election and succession of Adams is of prime importance; 
for that occasion marks the transition in general English 
opinion from the verdict that the United States govern- 

1A Letter to a Friend, 1792. 

2T. S. Norgate, The Principles of Government, 1797, 24 ; A. H. Kowan, 
Autobiography, 1840, 110. 

3J. Q. Adams, Works, II, 101. ±Post. 

5Some Information Concerning America, 1794. 

GAnte, 73. 7j. Q. Adams, Works, II, 63. 

817 November, 1796, F. O. Eecs. Amer., Ser. II, XIV. 



98 THE OPINION OF THE CONSERVATIVES 

ment was a temporary expedient to the conclusion that 
it had merits which would make it endure. Radicals, now 
greatly held back, pointed with delight to the election. 
"It has obviated the anxiety of every friend to liberty. . . . 
It was concluded without any disturbance, and affords a 
favorable presage of American prosperity." 1 So the Cabinet 
viewed it, especially when they found Adams firm in his 
stand with France in 1797-98. 

One last lingering wail we must record. It came from 
Jonathan Boucher, the expounder of orthodox Tory politi- 
cal philosophy in the Colonies before the Revolution, who 
long since had retreated to live in the mother country. He 
addressed his remarks to Washington, then in retirement 
at Mt. Vernon, and gave some senile prophesies for 
America's future which remind us of the visions of Tucker 
and of Andrews back in 1782. 

"Founded as the present government of North America 
was, under the auspices of the people, it must have been 
a solecism in politics had it not been weak. . . . With the 
seed of almost every political evil that can be named, and 
perhaps most of all that of tyranny ... it is hardly pos- 
sible that they should be either easily or well governed; 
and by being ill governed they are sure to become an un- 
happy people. ... I am tempted to conclude that after 
a long series of dissensions and contests the great continent 
of North America will become a great empire under a great 
monarch. ... If, in indulging the spirit of vaticination 
respecting the future destiny of America, I might take 
upon me still further to conjecture for ages yet unborn, I 
would prognosticate that the final downfall of the present 
confederated government will, like its origin, come from 
the North — the snowclad deserts of Acadia and Canada 
will at some period finally give law to all North America 
and also the West India Islands." 2 In the comment of a 
Monthly Reviewer, let us leave this morsel to posterity. 

iNorgate, Op. Cit. . . . 

2A View of the Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution, 
1799. 



CHAPTER III. 

The Administration, Fox, .and Burke. 

We have dwelt on the inimical attitude of the Cabinet 
during the hazardous days before 1789. Its members, cer- 
tain that the country could not keep treaties, and believing 
that it would eventually disintegrate, ignored our ad- 
vances, and further injured our name abroad. With the 
coming of the Constitution, what changes, if any, marked 
the Cabinet's attitude and what views of American govern- 
ment were held by leading members of Parliament like 
Burke, Fox and Sheridan? 

First it is a little hard for us to transplant our minds 
and realize in Mr. Wells' phrase, that the revolution to 
England was "a provincial incident.'' We get some com- 
prehension of it in tracing the views of Pitt's Cabinet; 
America really mattered very little. For nine years she 
was not even accredited with a British minister. For 
twelve years there was no treaty of commerce. 

The progress of the discussion about sending a minister 
discloses in perhaps the most specific way the English 
Cabinet's changing attitude at this period. Immediately 
after the treaty of peace England twice suggested sending 
out a minister. But when she saw the impotence of our 
Congress the matter was dropped. When the Federal 
Government was adopted, overtures about a minister were 
forthwith commenced, but another element entered to de- 
lay the creation of a mission for two years. 

After Hartley had concluded with our Commissioners 

99 



100 THE ADMINISTRATION, FOX, AND BURKE 

the provisional Treaty of Peace, he entered into conversa- 
tions about commerce. Fresh from a trip to London in 
the Spring of 1783, and speaking for Fox, he "communi- 
cated the desire of the Court that the two powers should 
interchange ministers as soon as possible." 1 Adams was 
eager that this be done, feeling that the prestige of America 
would be enhanced, and he urged Livingston to have action 
taken. As the Summer passed and nothing happened, our 
Commissioners seemed to have asked Laurens to question 
Fox upon the liklihood of England making the exchange. 2 
Fox put the query direct to George III. His answer out- 
lines the policy followed toward America for the next few 
years, and shows that the primary reasons for it were the 
king's personal pique and our disordered government : 

"As to the question whether I wish to receive a minister 
from America, I certainly can never express its being 
agreeable to me; indeed I should think it wisest to have 
only agents who can settle any matter of commerce; but 
so far I can not help adding that I shall ever have a bad 
opinion of any Englishman who would accept of being an 
accredited minister for that revolted state, and which cer- 
tainly for years can not establish a stable government.." 3 

Fox did not communicate the first reason for not ex- 
changing a minister ; but Dorset, in his dispatch about con- 
gressional weakness, indicated the second reason clearly 
enough at the same time that he further discussed the 
problem of a minister, urging that the United States take 
the initial step. 

When the appointment of Adams followed he was 
charged with saying to Lord Carmarthen that Congress 
expected reciprocation. Carmarthen answered "that a 
minister plenipotentiary would certainly be sent," 4 and 
said there was some difficulty in securing a proper person. 

lAdams to Livingston, 24 May, 1783, Dip. Corresp. (1783-89), VIII, 60. 
2 Memorials and Corresp. of Charles James Fox, 1857, II, 140. 
3Fox, Memorials, II, 140. 
4Adams to Jay, 16 June, 1786, Dip. Corresp. (1783-89), V, 132. 



THE ADMINISTRATION, FOX, AND BURKE 101 

This was in June, 1786. Meanwhile Carmarthen awaited 
developments from his Memorial of the preceding February 
about treaty violations. Congress could not enforce the 
demands of the Memorial upon the states and coincidentally 
Carmarthen dropped the subject of the minister. Adams, 
at the expiration of his appointment, said he thought the 
post should be left vacant and not filled until England 
made advances. 

Yet it came about that Gouverneur Morris, with a letter 
under Washington's own hand, was obliged to request a 
minister and permitted to give assurances that we would 
send one in return. Unable to invoke the uselessness of 
sending an envoy to a weak Congress, Carmarthen now 
repeated the old excuse about the trouble of securing a fit 
person and added the new excuse that there was danger 
of trouble with France, and that Great Britain wished to 
see how America stood. Besides, there was friction between 
the United States and Great Britain about the Treaty. 
Another year passed until, in the Fall of 1791, George 
Hammond and Thomas Pinckney were exchanged. Before 
the constitution it was the inefficiency of our government 
which played a large role in the Cabinet's attitude. After 
the constitution it was the threatening affairs on the Con- 
tinent. 1 

The key to the Ministry's position lies in our relations 
with France. In 1792 Pinckney found that the Court con- 
sidered Americans identical in principle with the French. 2 
Hammond's dispatches enforced this belief. Just so long 
as there was doubt about our preference between England 
and France, so long the ministry remained indifferent. Our 
improved government was accepted as a matter of course. 
Pitt took the safe middle ground of holding that our Con- 
stitution was good for America but not suited to England. 
In a debate on the Test and Corporation Acts he said that 
he wished the American constitution afforded equal secur- 

i Sparks, Morris, II, 1-57. 

2C. C. Pinckney, Life of General Thomas Pinckney (1895), 103. 



102 THE ADMINISTRATION, FOX, AND BURKE 

ity for liberty and happiness with that of Great Britain, 
and said that the argument for abolishing test laws because 
there were none in America was inapplicable ; "the Ameri- 
can constitution resembles ours in neither church nor 
state." 1 

When we began to drift away from France, the wind 
instantly changed. In place of indifference the Cabinet's 
tone became one of warmth, and finally of ecstatic praise. 
With Jay's mission, which sharply annoyed France, the 
change begins. At its conclusion Jay was feted by mer- 
chants and Ministry; glowing pro- American sentiments 
were expressed. The three cheers for the President of the 
United States were prolonged to six. 2 

In 1797 King wrote Hamilton from London that our 
government and situation was commended everywhere and 
that "no American who has not been in England can have 
a just idea of the admiration expressed among all parties 
of General Washington. . . . The King is without doubt a 
very popular character among the people of the nation; 
it would be saying very much to affiirm that next to him 
General Washington is the most popular character among 
them, yet I verily believe this to be the fact." 3 

In 1798, after it was seen that an election of a new 
President had gone off quietly and that he had held office 
without insurrection, and especially after Adams had taken 
stringent steps with France, the Cabinet's opinion of 
America, as well as that of the public, if the newspapers 
are any criterion, was at its height. Lord Grenville told 
King that "the people of Great Britain must look to Amer- 
ica instead of to Europe and from its increase and pros- 
perity they hoped and expected to find what they should 
lose in Europe." 4 

It is in connection with affairs in France that we meet 
most of the comment expressed by Sheridan, Burke, and 

^Hansard, XXVIII, 413. 
2Jay, Papers and Corresp., IV, 164. 
3Kufus King-, Life and Corresp., II, 141. 
4King, IMd, II, 372. 



TEE ADMINISTRATION, FOX, AND BURKE 103 

Fox. Back in 1794, denouncing the administration for a 
war which he held might have been averted — the United 
States had remained neutral — Sheridan said : 

"Oh, turn your eyes to America; view her situation, 
her happiness, her content! Observe her trades and her 
manufactures, adding daily to her general credit, to her 
private engagements, and her public resources — her name 
and government rising above the nations of Europe." 1 

In opposition, like his colleague Sheridan, it was Fox's 
business, also, to laud American example. Repudiating 
the idea that license must follow liberty as in France, he 
asked if there were anarchy in America "whose own 
glorious Constitution was founded on the rights of man. 
No such thing." 2 During a speech on the Address he re- 
ferred to the people "who enjoyed at least the first con- 
stitution in the world — for them, most certainly the best 
form of government on earth, for so he would venture to 
say was the government of America." 3 

Like Grattan, he called upon America as proof that per- 
mitting all religions to participate freely in civil affairs 
was no source of dissension. 4 Like the conservatives, he 
held that America had built on England's model: "They 
had preserved as much as they possibly could of the old 
form . . . and made this what was best for themselves, 
consisting of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy 
blended." 5 

It was on the same basis that Edmund Burke endorsed 
the American Constitution, though with great conserv- 
atism. When the Articles of Confederation were agreed 
to, he referred to them, if the account in the Annual 
Register be his, as "a remarkable Treaty." 6 When the 
Constitution was adopted his mind was occupied with 
Warren Hastings and then with the outbreak in France. 

mansard, XXX, 1219. 

mansard, XXIX, 81; Ditto, Hansard, XXIX, 110. 

Wansard, XXIX, 412. 

^Hansard, XXVIII, 396. 

mansard, XXIX, 412. 61777, 23. 



104 THE ADMINISTRATION, FOX, AND BURKE 

To those who chided him on inconsistency in his treatment 
of the insurrection in America and the rebellion in France 
he replied that "lie was favorable to the American because 
he supposed they were fighting not to conquer absolute 
speculative liberty, but to keep what they had under the 
English Constitution." 1 

This is also the explanation of his tolerance of the 
American Constitution despite his intolerance of the 
French. In the Reflections, where the name America is not 
mentioned, he gave as his prescription for a statesman, "a 
disposition to preserve and an ability to improve, taken 
together would be my standard !" 2 And he intimates what 
he thought France should have done in this statement, 
"If . . . you had kept the ancient principles and models 
of the old common law of Europe meliorated and adapted 
. . . you would have given an example of wisdom to the 
world." 3 

Precisely because America had followed precedent, and 
because that precedent was the British Constitution, Burke 
refrained from denouncing the framework, though he had 
little use for republics and democracies 4 . His longest 
reference to our Constitution occurs in the debate on the 
Quebec Bill, May 11, 1791. 5 Like the conservative school, 
he distinguished the elements which permitted it to work 
in the United States and which obviated the logic of the 
conclusion that the same Constituttion would work every- 
where else: 

"The people of America had, he believed, formed a Con- 
stitution as well adapted to their circumstances as they 
could. But, compared with the French they had a certain 
quantity of phlegm, of old English good nature, that fitted 
them better for a Republican government. They had also 
a republican education; their former internal government 

iHansard, XXIX, 395. 

2WorTcs, 1884, III, 383. 

zioid, 279. 

4A Vindication of Natural Society. 

5 Hansard, XXIX, 359, seq. 



THE ADMINISTRATION, FOX, AND BUEKE 105 

was republican, and the principal vices of it were re- 
strained by the beneficence of an over-ruling monarchy in 
this country. The formation of their Constitution was 
preceded by a long war, in the course of which by military 
discipline, they had learned order and submission to com- 
mand, and a regard for great men. They had learned what 
— if it was possible in so enlightened an age as the present 
to allude to antiquity — a King of Sparta had said was the 
great wisdom to be learned in his country, to command 
and obey. They were trained to government by war, not 
by plots, murders and assassinations. In the next place 
they had not the materials of monarchy or aristocracy 
among them. They did not, however, set up the absurdity 
that a nation should govern the nation ; that Prince Pretty- 
man should govern Prince Prettyman; but formed their 
governments as nearly as they could, according to the 
model of the British Constitution. Yet he did not say, 
"Give this Constitution to a British colony," because if 
the bare imitation of the British Constitution were 
so good, why not give them the thing itself? as he who 
professed to sing like a nightingale, was told by the person 
to whom he offered his services that he could hear the 
nightingale herself." 



CHAPTEK IV. 

Criticism of Constitutional Organization. 

"With what curious diffidence must the members of the 
Convention revolved in their minds the difficulties — so 
vast a country and for a state not yet formed," wrote 
William Winterbotham, the liberal clergyman incarcer- 
ated at Newgate by Government for some remarks from 
the pulpit which we should now consider colorless indeed. 
He whiled away his confinement by compiling from sec- 
ond hand sources "An Historical, Geographical, Com- 
mercial and Philosophical View of the American United 
States." 1 His account of the changes from the Articles to 
the Constitution is the most complete from an English 
hand in this period, and his criticism of the organization 
of the constitutional powers the most full. What, in gen- 
eral, did political writers think of the structure of our 
government, its source, nature, and powers? 

First of all, the "Fathers" were not accredited with 
being the creators of the scheme; it was the consequence 
of imitation and precedent. "Not one of them discovered 
the genius of a great statesman. . . . They had patience : 
Information flowed in from all parts of the world. . . . 
The plan was adopted, not invented by those who will 
have the historical fame of it," 2 was the verdict of a most 
amiable critic. As we have seen asserted, Great Britain 
was believed to be the chief model. 

But the source of American government was the people. 
Political writers of all hues hailed as a novelty the spec- 

11795, 4 Vols. 

^Lessons to a Young Prince, D. Williams, 1795, 67. 

107 



108 CRITICISM OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION 

tacle, "never before witnessed in the history of the world," 1 
of a people through delegates deliberately constructing a 
form of government. 2 In the classical political economy 
all government was said to be the result of force, fraud, 
or accident. 3 "The American is the only exception, which 
is the act of a whole people by their representatives equally 
and universally chosen." 4 "It exhibits a model of a well 
organized community of a government of all by all," wrote 
Lord Sempill, 5 as he endorsed the conclusion of Chalmers, 
reached years since, that American government was 
founded on compact. To its popular origin Priestley, 
driven to America by conservative persecution at home, 
attributed the object of the Constitution; "which is the 
securing of each individual in the enjoyment of his natural 
rights." 6 

The final proof of popular origin and control was found 
in the provision for amendment. Winterbotham called it 
a panacea of politics — "an improvement in the source and 
practice of government reserved to the United States." 1 It 
was a saving outlet for civil war. 7 "Knowing that man is 
yet in his cradle as to political institutions and that every 
day will produce an expansion of the mind, the Americans 
have happily left their government open to innovation by 
the people themselves," exclaimed Yorke. 8 With Cart- 
wright, he considered the amending clause one of the prime 
excellencies of the Constitution. 9 

Though the ultimate source was popular, English critics 
noted with approval the system of check and balance 
which tended to hold democracy in restraint as well as 
the three governmental branches from tyranny; and they 
recognized the odd division of sovereignty between the 

i Winterbotham, View, I, 327. 

2J. Payne, An Epitome of History, 1795, II, 533. 

^Thoughts on the Origm . . . of Political Constitutions, 1795. 

*A Short Sketch of the Revolution, by Laelius, 1793. 

sShort Address to the Public, 1793. ^Lectures on History, 1826, 526. 

7 A Reply to Mr. Burke, T. Cooper, 1792. 

9See preface, Debrett's edition of the Constitution, 1795. 



CRITICISM OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION 109 

states and nation. The nature of our government was 
variously defined as "mixed/' 1 "aristocratical-democrat- 
ical," 1 or downright "democracy." 2 Paley, before the Con- 
stitution was adopted, hit the mark closer with "federal 
republic/' which he conceded to be a likely device for per- 
mitting democracy to flourish over a large territory. 3 

The checks and balances detected by our English friends 
were the lauded separation of executive, legislative and 
judicial, "an ideal equipose," 4 the bicameral legislature, 
each House guarding against the other, and the President's 
veto holding both down from above, while popular elec- 
tion restricted them from below. Rabid democracy was 
to be curbed by the sedate Senate, the President by fre- 
quent elections, the judges by removal and stopping of 
pay. In fact the President, Congress, and the electorate 
were continually regarded as forming three estates, bal- 
ancing one another and similar to those of Great Britain. 5 
Malkin objected to the accuracy of this classification: 
"There undoubtedly are three estates in England and 
three estates in America, but the parallel will go no 
further. It is worthy to be classed with that of Shakes- 
pere's Welshman, "There is a river in Macedon, there is 
also a river at Monmouth, and there are salmon in both." 6 

The additional check of the states on the nation and 
vice versa, was appreciated as a delicate adjustment. Its 
arrangement was a third prime difficulty in the Conven- 
tion, according to Winterbotham. The other two were 
selecting a form adapted to a large country, and working 
without a precedent. 7 The doctrine of divided sovereignty 
was laid down in this way: "The states are at present 
confederated with certain portions of sovereignty in the 
distinct legislatures of each, with specific portions in Con- 

lPublistical Survey of all the Different Forms of Government, T. B. 
Clarke, 1791. 

2Malkin, Essays, 85. 

^Principals of Moral and Political Philosophy, 1785, 85. 

4Malkin, Ibid, 130. 

^Considerations on the State of the House of Commons, 1794, 57, seq. 

«Malkin, Ibid, 132. Wiew, I, 228. 



110 CRITICISM OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION 

gress — no more of the states sovereignty was resigned 
than was necessary for forming a union. 1 Winterbotham 
remarks that the most important element of sovereignty 
had been surrendered when Congress was allowed to act 
directly on the individual, the distinguishing difference 
he said, between the Articles and the Constitution, and 
one which made the Federal Government the stronger of 
the two. Despite this lever, Cobbett believed that "the 
great defect of the Constitution was the leaving too much 
power in the hands of the governments of the different 
states." 2 

"The first magistrate who loves all the states and is be- 
loved by them all . . . looks out of his window, surveys 
his plantation, and is supported principally by his own 
estates," wrote G. Dyer, praising American frugality. 3 A 
less democratic picture of the President was drawn by one 
of Paine's opponents who described him as a King — 
"Cromwell exercised more power by the name of Protector, 
than Charles had to lose as King. Names do not much 
signify." 4 Indeed English liberal opinion felt that the 
President had rather too much power for a republican 
government. Godwin refers to the "iniquity of so much 
power in one man." 5 Priestley, 6 like Callender, 7 regretted 
his participation in treaty making and objected to re- 
election. 6 Winterbotham echoed the same criticism, com- 
plaining also that the pardoning power was too extreme 
and asserting that there should be an executive council to 
guard against presidential usurpation. The veto was the 
sharpest thorn. Hammond notified the government of 
Washington's first employment of the prerogative. 8 It 
created a stir in radical circles : "That one man should con- 

lOldys, Life of Thomas Pain (sic), 1792, 143. 

2Works, 1801, I, 29. 

SThe Complaint of the Poor People of England (1795), 114. 

^Principles of Order under the British Constitution, 1792, 8. 

^Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, 1798, II, Bk. I. 

^Letters to the Inhabitants of Northumberland, 1799, Letter X. 

^American Annual Register, 1796, 107. 

85 April, 1792, F. O. Kecs., XIV. 



CRITICISM OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION 111 

tradict a nation. ... Is too much." 1 Priestley, while 
warmly applauding the electoral college, added his dis- 
sent to the veto privilege. 2 

Two suggested reformations in selecting the president 
should be mentioned : Fearful of factional happenings at 
Washington's death, William Gordon, the historian, wrote 
to Washington and suggested that the Presidency go to 
each state in rotation, beginning with the largest and 
passing to the smallest in population. 3 A writer in the 
Monthly Review* suggested a Directory, with Directors 
from different sections of the country "to impede the 
facility of disruption in case the West and the other states 
should vote for distant Presidents." 

The Yice-President escaped English eyes, except for 
some denunciation by Winterbotham and John Payne 
because his chairmanship of the Senate violated the prin- 
ciple of separation. 

The Senate was praised by conservatives on account of 
its sobering limitation on popular action and on account 
of its protection for the small states. 5 It was assailed by 
radicals on the ground of over much prerogative. "America 
wisely created a Senate and its good effects have been 
fully experienced," wrote an Irish author. 6 In his "Travels 
in France" Young thus indicates his approval: "In con- 
stituting the legislatures, the states all have two houses, 
except Pennsylvania, and Congress itself meets in the 
same form. Thus a ready explanation is found of that 
order and regularity and security of property which 
strikes every eye in America, a contrast to the spectacle 
which France exhibits." 7 

But Winterbotham caviled about its power. Because 
of its long duration, privilege of altering money bills, re- 

iPoUtical Review, 18 July, 1792. 

^Lectures on History, 1826, 573. 

3Spark's Corresp. Amer. Rev., IV, 436. 

4February 1797. 

5J. Payne, Op. Cit., II, 530. 

^Thoughts on British Constitution, Belfast, 1794. 

7Bohn, 1900, 338. 



112 CRITICISM OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION 

moteness from the people, it will "destroy any and every 
balance of the government." He objected to its participa- 
tion in appointment, which he would reserve to an execu- 
tive council. To ameliorate the dissatisfaction over equal 
representation of large and small states, Priestley ad- 
vocated the sending of three senators from each common- 
wealth instead of two, though it is somewhat difficult to 
ascertain what difference would be made. 1 

"The inequality between Senate and House never will 
be endured. As larger states grow larger," thought 
Callender, "an alteration or dislocation of the Senate will 
certainly follow." 2 Winterbotham, rabid on popular rep- 
resentation, considered the House of Representatives too 
small, "a shadow only of the representation." Priestley, 
who wanted to change everything just a little, said elec- 
tions should be triennial instead of biennial. Winterbotham 
detected the clause through which governmental expansion 
would flow. "Under the general clause at the end of the 
enumerated powers Congress may get everything under 
control." 

One English traveller during this period visited the 
House and has left his impressions. Henry Wansey in 
"An Excursion to the United States of North America in 
1794" makes more references to political conditions than 
any other of the seven British tourists 3 who published their 
travels. He commends the oratory of the House and says 
that "a serious attention to business marked the counte- 
nances of the representatives, who were all very decently 
dressed." "I was struck with the convenient arrangement 
of the seats for the members; the size of the chamber was 
about one hundred feet by sixty; the seats, in three rows, 
formed semi-circles behind each other facing the speaker, 
who was in a kind of a pulpit near the center of the radii, 
and the clerks below him ; every member was accomodated 

Wp. Cit., 578. 

zAmer. Annual Reg., 1796, 98. 

3Wansey, T. Anburey, William Priest, T. Cooper, Isaac Weld, J. F. D. 
Smythe, R. Parkinson. 



CRITICISM OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION 113 

for writing, by there being likewise a circular writing desk 
to each of the circular seats ; over the entrance was a large 
gallery into which were admitted every citizen, without 
distinction, who chose to attend ?' n 

In discussing our courts, the English critics made no 
specific statement that they enjoyed the power to invalid- 
ate laws of the nation and of the states running counter to 
the Federal Constitution. But that such a power reposed 
in the judicial arm was inferred by the rejoicing because 
under the new constitution a treaty was federal law and 
that henceforth there need be no worry about state in- 
fringement. The English diplomatic officers apprised the 
Government of this circumstance and noted significantly 
that "the present Chief Justice (Mr. John Jay) was the 
minister for foreign affairs who reported the infraction of 
the treaty of peace." 2 On the other hand the Public Ad- 
vertiser printed the following categorial "Extract from 
New York:" "The judicial power is established for the 
benefit of foreigners and will be a check on any encroach- 
ment by the state or the United States on the Constitution. 
They have the power of declaring void any law infringing 
it. They will be perfectly independent and can only be 
removed by impeachment." 3 

The case of Chisholm against Georgia was noticed with 
interest, reported in the Annual Register 4 and the Monthly 
Review/ and printed by Debrett. Decentralizing Winter- 
botham looked on it as an effort to absorb jurisdiction of 
the state courts. In fact all English critics of the judicial 
arm said that it was grasping power, and its system of 
appeals made law tedious, intricate, and expensive. Cob- 
bett, blinded however by alien and sedition laws, denounced 
the courts bitterly. 

Yet for all the incidental fault finding of individuals, by 

11798, 98-99. 

227 May, 1790, C. O. Papers, class 42, Can., LXVII. 

38 October, 1789. 

41793, 23. 

5May, 1793. 



114 CRITICISM OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION 

and large, English opinion thought highly of our constitu- 
tional organization. Shelburne 1 and Wilberforce 2 said the 
model should be adopted by France. Lord Grenville hoped 
the South American countries would follow the system. 3 
In the writings of the radicals we have seen something of 
the veneration of our constitution in England 125 years 
ago that existed in America a century later. A. H. Rowan, 
the Irish exile, noticed the incipience of the American halo 
in 1796 : 

"I see the same attachment to the present constitution 
and reverence for it with abuse of its opponents, or rather 
of the reformists, as exists in our own country in favor of 
the British Constitution, indeed I think it too young to 
brag so much of it." 4 

But at this era praise of the American government and 
experiment came not only from British Radical and Irish 
Patriot. It came from the aristocrats and scions of the 
royal house itself. This passage, so different from the 
words of fifteen years before, demonstrates the altered 
English opinion of the American enterprise. It was written 
by William Frederick, Duke of Gloucester to William 
Windham in the Fall of 1798 : 

"What a power ! What immense inexhaustible resources ; 
What a length of coast and what fine harbors! Should 
she ever become a maritime power, all the West Indies will 
be here and I should not be surprised to see South America 
under her dominion." 5 

^Hansard, XXXI, 683. 

Wcmsard, XXII, 11. 

zLife and Corresp. of Rufus Kvrtg, II, 572. 

4 Autobiography, 1840, 120. 

^Windham Papers, 1913, II, 79. 



** ■% 



v 0o 






^ 



\> 



v *^ 



\ N 



^ 



£ ^ \ 



\> 






v 



-% 



r * ^ 






\ uc i<. 



o 



u~ 









P 



'^0^ 






&'• 



<p-~ 









1> 






f a , 














V 











\ 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



V 



022 021 588 A 









